Curb-Stomping Our Warriors

Superb work, Keori

Saw this interview last night too... gah.

How many wonderfully dedicated and highly trained/ qualified soldiers does this country have to lose to DADT before it is finally scrapped as a discriminatory practice?

And as a writer to the tips asked this morning, how many millions are being spent on the process of eliminating our soldiers?

I would further add, especially in the case of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, how many millions of dollars of training is also being lost?

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS- KEEP THEM IN THEIR JOBS!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:01:55 PM CDT

So promote it ;)

This makes me so angry I can't speak. The Air Force claims that Lt.Col. Fehrenbach is an affront to the service, and a hazard to good order and discipline, yet they had no problem making him an instructor, putting him in a position of authority and leadership, to teach junior pilots their craft. He was such a threat to national security that he personally was selected to fly 9/11 sorties, and then given access to the young, impressionable minds of the next generation of pilots.

This is horseshit. This is an insult to every troop out there, and an affront to human decency. The Air Force's Core Values are "Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do." I see none of those core values being upheld here. There is only hate and cowardice.

I'm really looking forward to Major Witt's day in court, and the Pentagon having to prove her presence was a threat.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:07:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay already

Now I KNOW you're "my kid"; you nag like the other ones do! ;)

Seriously, just got in a half hour ago and working my way thru stuff- like this:

http://melouise.wordpress.com/...

Will see what else is going up this afternoon as not to bump my superior officers baristas...


Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:20:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rachel missed the WORST half of the story

I'm mad for Maddow, but the facts are far WORSE than she reported about the Capt. Witt decision...tho she is not the first commentator to only "hear" half of the story. The OTHER, mindboggling half, which is actually worse than their simply not working to repeal DADT, is this:

Obama has gone from simply standing by while people like Lts. Choi, Tsao, & Fehrenbach are discharged [when he has Congressional authority under 10 United States Code 12305 to stop them in the interest of national security] to replacing his old promise of fighting to get DADT repealed with a NEW promise to actively DEFEND it in court!

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

"A Justice Department spokeswoman said THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DEFEND [DADT] at the trial over Maj. [Margaret] Witt's dismissal. . . . White House spokesman Ben LaBolt added: 'Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, THE ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND THE STATUTE WHEN IT IS CHALLENGED IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM." - Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2009.

Before anyone responds, "But they have no choice," they DO have a choice! They have the choice of "the other side" in any lawsuit not to act in which case the court typically automatically rules in favor of, in this case, the plaintiff.

That would be Major Witt against whom the Obama administration, taking up where the Bushie's left off, will now go into court and say,

"WE want her fired. WE want anyone who challenges DADT in court fired."

Take me now, Lord, just take me now!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:09:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How are you knowing that they're doing NOTHING?

Omnipotent or a telepath or what?

She's a journalist. If she thinks that's true she would have to frame it more carefully. (not as fact, emphasis on "as far as we know")

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:28:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do you know that they are?

You seem to be very good at joining these threads and making really bogus charges, (you accused me of making assumptions which I demonstrably never did), all in blind support of Obama. Now you are just being rude by sarcastically asking Michael if he is omnipotent or telepathic. You would have made an excellent PUMA. All noise, no substance.
 Are you sure you're not that Americablog poster "Chris from Paris", (who begins these intolerance of differing viewpoint crusades often)? Because you remind me very much of him.
 Either way, I recommend that you replace the filter between your ears because blind support and obedience for Obama is no better than the same for W Bush.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:43:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't, you seem to have gotten the thread-level wrong

And I'm not Chris from Paris.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:48:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You all seem to get a little bit hysteric on this

I'm not a blind supporter of Obama, I just think that all this hysteric talk is unfounded.

Maybe you're right in the end, but that's as if the Bushies actually prevented an attack and claimed that torture works.

Don't present your 'logic' conclusions as fact/THE TRUTH. I don't say that my OPINIONs are THE TRUTH.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:54:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I'm not being rude

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:20:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then try replying to the political questions raised

instead of trolling around giving everybody but yourself an F. That's not only rude, it indicates that you have nothing to say except that you're angry with commenters who know much more than you.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 20:25:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Haven't you noticed the Chris from Old Europe

has been rating every criticism of Obama "1 Unproductive"?  The old darling simply can't countenance anyone daring to suggest that President Bush-Lite has abandoned us.  Belief dies hard, I guess.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:13:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't rate intelligent criticism that way

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:54:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL Could you enlighten us, please?

You have taken vigorous exception to every single criticism of President Bush-Lite voiced here.  Could you please give us an example of what you consider "intelligent criticism" of him?

And do you really think rating people who've been active here for years as "trolls" (which you've done to me) accomplishes anything productive?  

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 17:23:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I even rated you better when I think it's good

Even productive members can troll. That doesn't mean they're trolls in general.

I think all your derision and your "my POV is fact" isn't very helpful while your comments a few threads down are excellent.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 17:52:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you can't cite even one.

That's what I expected.  Only your viewpoint is "intelligent."  Of course.  Why haven't I realized this before?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:41:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a strategic move by the Obama administration to get DADT thrown out without involving the Senate or the Pentagon.

They want to be in a position of defending DADT to a friendlier lower court specifically because they know they can't do it.  Because it can't be done.  There is no defense for DADT.

The Court then nullifies DADT with a definitive decision and it's done.  No more DADT.  And no having to argue within the government to get it done.

Even if it were possible for the government to forfeit a court case (if anyone can cite a single instance when that has ever happened in the history of this country, please do as I'm not aware of any), a forfeiture is not a definitive decision.  The political firestorm over such a move would be neverending.

This is a brilliant move.  Obama keeps his promise -- and keeps it faster than through any other venue -- while looking like he was trying to do the opposite.  Everybody wins.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:35:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where is your evidence?

You spin a very good yarn but that's all it is! I see no reason to believe that what you're saying in any way represents the reality of the situation. I could get the same kind of partisan commentary on FAUX "News".

---

by: Margaret @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:47:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well...

The fact that the Justice Department intentionally allowed 2 opportunities to bring this to the SCOTUS is an important sign that they are not overly invested in fighting this.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:54:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:16:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whatever.

I stated my conclusion based on the available facts and every fact I stated is accurate.  Believing in facts really isn't optional.  If you come to a different conclusion based on the facts, this is the place for you to share that conclusion.  And I promise I won't attack you when you do.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:15:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jessica H. Christ, what ARE you smoking?

A "lower court" cannot "nullify" DADT! The most they can do is order the readmission of individual servicemembers, as they did in the cases of Keith Meinhold and Margarete Cammermeyer, and HOPE they don't get overridden.

ONLY the US Supreme Court could nullify DADT and that is the ONLY good thing that the administration did in this instance....not take it to them for they would be sure to uphold it, just as they've refused to grant certiori in the past to any anti-DADT ruling.

But there remains NO EXCUSE for their continuing to FIGHT FOR discharges in the lower courts. Anyone who says that any individual or agency HAS TO do anything is living in a black and white fairytale world, run by the mob. Moral men and women refuse to enforce immoral laws, whether pauper or King.

What would happen if they simply didn't contest the lower court's decision in Maj. Witt's favor? Homophobes, large and small would bitch. Elaine Donnelly might set her broomstick on fire in front of the White House. Any threats of impeachment would die a lonely death in committee.

There is every reason, particularly if he played the National Security/National Interest card as well as he is in other instances of unprecedented controverial action like nationalizing a car company, particularly given that upt to 81 % of the public supports repeal, to believe that sanity and common sense would prevail and life would go on.

Particularly for those thousands of gays in the military, particularly for the dozens who've been kicked out under Obama. So many here seem to ignore what's happening to our gay brothers and sisters even as I write this.

The irony is that he is letting the tail wag the dog again, and turned into the moral coward that he described in 2007:

"Fourteen years ago, the Democratic Party faced a test of leadership, and our party failed that test. We had an opportunity to be leaders on the World stage in eliminating discrimination against gay and lesbian
service members, to recognize the patriotism and heroism of the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian citizens who have served our country. Instead, we bowed to fear and prejudice. We were told that American soldiers weren't ready to serve next to gay and lesbian comrades. We were told that our airmen, sailors and Marines would lose their "unit cohesion" if we implemented a policy of equality. And so, rather than embracing leadership and principle, we embraced Don't Ask, Don't Tell - a policy that is antithetical to the values of honor and
integrity that our military holds most dear."  

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:27:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"But there remains NO EXCUSE for their continuing to FIGHT FOR discharges in the lower courts."

As has been pointed out in another post (and implied in mine) the "excuse" for the government defending the law in a lower court is that it's the law that they do exactly that.

When the lower court finds against the law, it's precedent.  Any other court rulings anywhere else would have to take the precedent into account.  DADT would be nullified.

I get that this has apparently made you upset and I'm sorry that it's all for nothing.  Other than that, I don't know what else to say other than to wish you a good afternoon.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:48:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is sort of true and sort of not

I once got a ticket for speeding.  The attorney general's office decided, instead, to ignore that.  I showed up in court and the case against me was dismissed.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:18:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a fantasy concocted by an apologist who opposes mass action.

Show us a leaked memo or a story by a reputable reporter to back up you absurd fantasy.

Some people seem determined to excuse the Democrats craven pandering to the christian right, maneuvering to resist our agenda and their growing hostility to our communities no matter what. They have an excuse for everything from Warren to 'gawds in the mix' and each is less realistic than the last.

diablorobiticos latest is like a bad alternative history book projected into the future. It's not only silly but it promotes inaction in the face of attacks against us.

Delaying the repeal of DOMA and DADT, legacies of Bill  Clinton and his Democrats and the passage of hate crimes and an inclusive ENDA are an attack on the LGBT communities as bad as Obama's crude but successful attempt to bring out the bigot vote in his favor with homophobic garbage like "gawd's in the mix."

The best way to resist these attacks is to organize persistent independent mass actions to compel passage of our agenda and repeal of DOMA and DADT.

That beats living in a fantay world any day.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 20:17:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually No, they don't have a choice...

Whether you like it or not DADT is the LAW. The Justice Department and the executive branch of the government is obligated to uphold and defend the law in court. They could do a half assed job, but they do have to abide by the law.

Let us not forget that it was having a government that casually ignored the law that gave us the horrors of the Bush years.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:52:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

An unjust law is no law at all.

---

by: Bachalon @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:34:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But that is the decision of the SC in the end.

There would be no problem if the Supreme Court had the right judges.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:36:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, they're not

The executive branch, as its check on the legislative branch, can choose not to expend resources on any law.

Ever hear about the people that complain that we don't need stricter gun control laws, we just have to enforce the ones on the books?  That's what this is.  The Obama Administration could choose (had they an ounce of courage among the lot of them) to not enforce the law.

Don't know why people don't know this.  We had to learn this in our high school government class, which was required for graduation.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:22:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you not been paying attention?

It's been well documented (including a think tank report released last week) that while Congress sets the policies, it is the president's decision how to implement them--and that includes whether to implement them at all.  Obama could simply instruct the Pentagon not to enforce the policy, either temporarily, pending Congressional action, or permanently.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:20:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do not think the President can tell someone to ignore the law.

That is what happened with the Bush Administration and Torture.  He informed people to ignore and thus break the law.  The policy has already been implemented, and the President cannot force anyone in the military to ignore a legally enacted law, however onerous it might be.  There are people all along the way who could challenge someone based on DADT and the government would be forced to act on those instances.

One does not get to chose which laws to honor or not honor without the risk of being held accountable for breaking the law.  What do you think would happen if a law was passed that benefited us, and then the President instructed the government to not honor it.  Would you accept that as legal?  Imagine Marriage Equality was passed at the Federal level and a republican president instructed the government to not honor that law.  What would you do?

I do think that in the case of Witt, we have the best possibility to overturn the law as subscribed by the courts.  Obama has said he needs someone to lead in congress or in the courts so he may act.  This is the chance to show in a court of law (just as we did in the Marriage cases in California) that the government has no rational justification for discrimination.  I do believe that is how we won every case on equality thus far.  With the exception of one state, every case of equality has derived from the court system.

Now, I do not trust Obama or his Administration when it comes to these issues, but I have more faith in the court that already decided that this law was not right in the dismissal of Witt.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:24:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He WOULD be following the law.

As I noted above, the law says that Congress sets the policies and the president determines how they are implemented.  How could following that provision of the law possibly be a violation of it?  The law clearly gives him the authority he'd need.

If you want to compare him to Bush, all you have to do is point out that he's continuing virtually all of Bush's policies--including the enforcement of DADT.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:06:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you have a link to that study?

I'd be interested in reading it myself.  I saw your mention, but with no link I could not verify.  I was under the impression that a fully enacted law couldn't be superseded by the whim of any president.  I understand NEW laws and the not implementing them, but not a law already implemented and active.

What do you think about the Witt case?  I personally would like to see some legal standing on the unconstitutionality of the DADT policy by the courts, as this is the best way to overturn and PREVENT future laws.  I think it would also be a case in which the results could be used as precedent to overturn DOMA.  I think we should be fighting this fight on all fronts, not just by fiat.  If one president ignores the implementation of the law, it does not preclude the next one from returning to it.  So the legality and unconstitutionality of the law   would go a long way in the future.

And I'm saddened that people have called me a traitor because I think the legal route is a good one to go.  Sometimes I guess I am just not too clear in my writing, guess I'll have to work on that.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The think tank report was covered here last week.

Scroll back a few days and I'm sure you'll find it.

When a think tank of legal scholars says Obama has the authority to end the discharges, we--and he--ought to listen.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 17:04:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, I found the link to the story here on PHB

As you suggested, I went back a ways, and if anyone else wants the link to the story here onPHB with all other relative links at that posting:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...


The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:32:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

SUPPORT THE TROOPS - BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW!.

The best way to support everyone in the US armed forces is to join the antiwar movement in demanding their immediate, total and permanent withdrawal from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia and Latin America.

Support for eliminating DADT should not be combined with support for the role of the US armed forces as the armed wing of Haliburton and Chevron/Texaco etc.

We should do all we can to discourage enlistment. We should do all we can to encourage people to leave military service.

If the military want to do something useful they can protect strikers, arrest profiteering looters committing economic terrorism against working people and prevent forclosures.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 19:50:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see my congressthing hasn't signed on as a sponsor

Looks like a good dinner party next election day.  No reason to do the "hard work" of getting her re-elected.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 05:33:56 AM CDT

The Ultimate Irony

Wouldn't it be ironic if our U.S. Military become the #1 force behind bringing LGBT issues front and center on the national stage?    Maybe our sluggish "gay rights movement" will get a much-needed jolt from our men and women in uniform.

Decades MORE of Psychological Abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:00:26 PM CDT

Well if DADT gets repealed people in the service are gonna get married.

Once they do the unfairness of practically being divorced every time they're
unlucky enough to be redeployed to a anti-gay state will really hit home.

And do you think any craven coward of a politician wants to stand up and attack
people who are willing to bleed for the country.

---

by: Narcoleptic_Kitty @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:31:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, give Obama a break!

He has a lot to do.  His aides, advisers, deputies and cabinet secretaries can't do any of it for him.  And there are so many important, pressing issues facing him.  The West Virginia delegation wants him to meet the newly-crowned Rhododendron Queen.  He has to start planning next year's Easter Egg hunt.  There are ministers in DC whose butts he hasn't kissed yet.  He's due at a poker game.  Just give him a bit of time, will you?  He has a secret plan for LGBT equality.  Of course, if he ever acts on it, it won't be secret any more, and we wouldn't want that, would we?  We have to trust him.

Now, would anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?  I can give you a good price.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:22:50 PM CDT

Ridiculous

Even under Obama, we're still one of the most backwards and self-defeating countries on the entire planet.

If it came between the choice of brains/expertise who happens to be gay, and a know-it-all Falwell University graduate with a bible, they'd choose the Falwell student with no expertise.

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:27:46 PM CDT

Uruguay gets it

Fuckin' URUGUAY repealed their ban. URUGUAY.

Seriously, WTF? What the FUCKING FUCK?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:56:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

After all I did to help and after all I gave to Obama's campaign

At this point if some pollster called me and asked, I would have to say that I don't approve of the job he's doing. Suddenly the man who inspired us all to work hard and do our part is choked with caution and the fear that Limbaugh will call him a "Liberal" more than two dozen times daily.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:30:07 PM CDT

Utter contempt?

the Obama Administration's utter contempt for its gay and lesbian troops

That's bull and someday you will be ashamed of yourself for saying that.  You're almost as bad as the cranks on RedState or WorldNutDaily.  If you had said Obama and Gates are cowards for not acting immediately, I would have to agree, but "utter contempt", please.

I'll eat my hat if sometime in the next eight years Obama doesn't sign legislation repealing DADT.  I saw that on Rachel's show last night too and as a citizen and a Vet, was embarrassed for our country.  However, good people getting screwed like Tsao, Choi and Fehrenbach are the exact reason DADT will eventually be repealed.

---

by: Democritus @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:32:20 PM CDT

I'll pass you the ketchup and ask for a slice

As an American citizen, and a ten year veteran, I stand by my assessment. I don't know what YOU call contempt, but  Random House defines contempt as "the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn. The state of being despised."

Maybe when someone outright lies to you for their own profit, and then stabs you and your friends in the back while smiling for the camera, you think they're really just doing you a favor. The rest of us have higher standards.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:46:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly...

Many of the people in question have lost all sense of proportion and shown to completely lack patience. Its this hard core "I demand change NOW" brigade that are going to hurt us all in the long run. Rather than seeming reasonable, the LGBT community is starting to look hysterical and totally unreasonable. Obama has been in office 121 days, and because he has not radially transformed the nation overnight has apparently become a sign that he hates gay people.

Honestly, have you EVER seen this level of hysteria pointed at a President on LGBT issues? Unless people calm down we're not going to have many allies. Hell, as a gay man, I'm already burned out on the hysteria. Its so unnecessary.

The Obama administration came in with an agenda that they wanted to push and on their own timetable. I just hope that they don't allow themselves to get sidetracked from their larger objectives because a few people lack patience.  

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:06:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There might be some exaggerations and misstatements being made here, but that's on both sides of the "too fast" question

While Obama may have been in office for less than a year, Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress for over two years, and DADT is a legislative issue.  Over the last two years, they had the excuse that Bush would have vetoed it.  That excuse is gone.

I understand the need to be patient.  But I am not going to be patient unless I have some expectation that my issues will eventually be addressed.  Neither the White House nor the Congress has set a timeline for this.  Unless and until I have a credible reason to believe that the policy will be over by a set date in the not-too-distant future, I say that the pressure should sty on.

---

by: pgraydon @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:27:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To which I have to add

that Obama was in Congress for both of those years.  And what did Mr. Fierce Advocate do about DADT then?  Or any other LGBT issue, for that matter?  Oh, that's right--he had more important things to do.  And still does.  And, to judge by his silence thus far, always will.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:22:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well, no, but...

...I've also never seen a president who made so many explicit promises to us during the campaign, either. And one who was a Constitutional scholar, to boot.

It's not hysteria when civil rights and basic humanity are involved. It's simply long-worn patience finally wearing thin.

---

by: boltgirl @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:28:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You haven't seen too many President's then.

Or Presidential Candidates.  On the Democratic side, each and every Presidential candidate has pandered and made huge promises to us, and gone on to pee on us and say it's raining.

I'm still surprised anyone is surprised by this turn of events.  NOT ONE Candidate or politician on the National Level has ever stood up completely for us or for what they promised.  Bill Clinton is the whole reason we have DOMA and DADT and that was after his promises.  I believe he's beaten Obama on the turncoat issue by a country mile.

And I do think that this current Witt case is in fact a way to have the court decision backing them up when they attempt to repeal DADT.  They have repeatedly stated that they needed someone in congress to lead on the issue, but if Congress won't act, a court decision would be compelling enough to move it forward.

But that is only an opinion based on my reading of the facts on hand.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:35:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Give Obama time...

Bill Clinton is the whole reason we have DOMA and DADT and that was after his promises.  I believe he's beaten Obama on the turncoat issue by a country mile.

He's just getting started.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 20:30:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I get that people are impatient to make up for the last eight years.

And I get that it was exciting to have a presidential candidate speak directly to us and include us.

But sometimes it's as if we can't wait for Christmas morning to get here.  Only there is no Santa Claus.  We'll get all our gifts eventually, but they're not going to come wrapped up in a bow all at once.

Obama's made some awful mistakes (Rick Warren, for instance) but that doesn't make him the dry drunk who abused us for the past eight years.  We kicked him out of the house.  Not having everything happen immediately and in the way we want it to with this new guy doesn't mean we've been abandoned.

It may be that we've been kicked for so long that even a hug feels like a slap in the face.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:34:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HUGS???

I bet Lts. Choi, Tsao, Fehrenback, Maj. Witt, and the 100-200 that he's discharged since becoming Commander-in-Chief, since taking the DADT baton from Bush, don't feel very "hugged"!

We don't need HUGS! From anyone in office. Nor hollow promises nor "support." Obama's not your goddamn Teletubby nor teddy bear nor a jock strap.

What we do need are CONCRETE changes in our lives, antigay laws eliminated; gay-positive laws passed.

Cue the immortal words of gay black icon Bayard Rustin:

"Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment." - Bayard Rustin

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:45:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was speaking metaphorically, not literally.

I get that you don't like what I have to say because we disagree.  I've politely refuted all your previous points while you've personally attacked me for doing so.  You are obviously very upset, but I am neither the cause nor the cure for that.  Rest assured, this will be my last reply to you on this subject.  If you feel the need to continue attacking me in other posts, so be it.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:55:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't like what you have to say

precisely because they fail at a basic grasp of the checks and balances of government.

Please, please, please, go to your high school and ask them if you can audit a government class.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:35:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe all those cases were by the ejecteds choice.

If I recall the facts correctly all of these cases are cases of people who came out in order to push the administration to do something.  That is not exactly the same as them being discovered and then thrown out.  I may be wrong on the facts of some of these, but I know the most recent have said they came out in order to protest the policy and to agitate change.

You cannot blame the administration and the military for acting on their coming out.  These are NOT normal DADT cases.

Correct me with the facts if I am wrong about the circumstances.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:39:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you Burnsey for blaming the victims!!!

Christ of the Andes!

It's OK to kick out gays because they refuse to LIE about themselves anymore???????????????????????????

THIS is Obama's greatest accomplishment....and sin:

He has brainwashed some gays into betraying their own!

SHAME ON YOU BOTH!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 17:13:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

SHAME ON YOU Michael Bedwell.

I do not approve of the DADT policy, nor do I approve of DOMA.  But I do think there is a difference between DADT cases in which a person is a victim of a witch hunt and one in which the person has publicly outed themselves in order to be discharged and put a face to the policy.

I do not think either case is acceptable, but to blame the outed by themselves cases on the Administration as if they had gone on a witch hunt is not fair.  I don't condone the actions of the administration but I do think there is a difference between the types of cases.

I actually do applaud those who step up and make a statement in order to affect change, but I do think that there is a difference in the cases and the ones who come out in order to be a representation, a face to the policy, are different than the ones in which they are hounded out of the military.  

It might only be a technical difference to you, but it is NOT the same, and the blame-which everyone is more than willing to throw at THIS administration- based on those cases is wrong.  Those that publicly come out, when knowing the consequences of the law, are NOT VICTIMS as you would like to make them out to be, they are revolutionaries, they are civil rights pioneers, but they ARE NOT VICTIMS.

During the civil rights movement, those who sat at the counters were NOT described as victims, the were accurately described as protestors or Civil Rights Activists.

I do not buy into your VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM approach.  Those who willingly stand up to fight discrimination should never be labeled VICTIM.  They are heroes, they are honorable, and I think it does them a disservice to be called VICTIM.

You may perceive my view as that of a brainwashed traitor, and that is your right, but we as gay people do not always see things the same way.  I have NEVER blamed anyone for the actions and misdeeds of our government, nor will I.  But whether or not you agree, I think it wrong to call an activist a victim.  But you can go right ahead if that is how YOU see it.  I have been an out gay man for over 25 years and I spoke to classes during my college years on being gay, in Fresno of all places.  I was beaten up and harassed for my speaking out and becoming a face of "Teh Gay" for those 5 years.  But I did not and would NOT ever call myself a victim for taking a public stance.  And that's what I think is happening in the cases of those who had the courage to stand up and break that stupid law.  I thoink YOU didminish their acts by calling them victim.      

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:08:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

These are only the cases that have recieved wide publicity.

Which makes it a sample size of 3 people that I have personally seen, of them only Dan Choi chose to out himself publicly, the rest have got public after being served with their papers.

Also I believe the number of people discharged since Obama took office is at least over a hundred, the witch hunts continue.

---

by: Narcoleptic_Kitty @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:44:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the facts.

I appreciate it.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:25:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obamabots are sure out in force today.

No better than Bushbots IMO.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:49:33 PM CDT

There are no blind followers.

At least the so-called Obamabots are better than the conspiracy theorists.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:59:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a "conspiracy theory"

to fail to place faith in the invisible secret gay-rights plan with no suggestion of its existence from the Obama administration?

---

by: M @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:02:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, you are putting statements in my mouth

I just don't think that you go before Congress before you know it will pass. If Conservadems let him fail, it would be bad for him and for the LBGT community. Or do you think progressive people say "Nice, that you tried"?

But it don't say this is the TRUTH, just that there is a real possibility that they actually try.

Some here say that it is the TRUTH that he is against us, that he hates us, that they'll never even try it etc. And you can't know that by now.

Of course there are valid concerns. I just fail to see how a hysteric reaction would help.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:13:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was put out before DADT

I was discharged under "other than honorable conditions" for being queer in 1990. Back then, it was up to whether your C.O. was a homophobe or not that decided what kind of discharge one got. I lost a pay grade and all of my benefits. Then I appealed and I lost all of my accumulated education money and another pay grade, just for appealing. I went from overall 4.0 evals and recommended for retention and promotion to overall 1.8 and not recommended. I don't mind having a debate on whether or not Obama is keeping his word, (clearly he is not), but I do mind people being scornful and malicious to those of us who have served and those of us who have been discharged for being LGBT and Q.
 Anybody who has not served, you are entitled to your opinion but you aren't qualified to show contempt and scorn for mine, you just aren't.  And I hope nobody likes it.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:56:51 PM CDT

But you are entitled to your contempt and scorn for us who have a different opinion.

Great. We're just dumb liars and intolerant.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:03:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I never said that either

In fact, I haven't shown you contempt or scorn yet but believe me, should I ever sink to your level, you won't have to be told that I am being scornful.

I'll take the better part of valor here.
Please feel free to be as derisive and contemptuous as you wish.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:13:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's enough for me that you imply it

You don't have to say it.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:15:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I honestly

do not think that anyone is being scornful. However, people like myself are tired of the unnecessary hysterics. What happened to you was unfortunate but that was nearly 20 years ago. I'm just finding that people seem to have lost patience WAY to quickly. Things take tame. It took LBJ 2 years to get the Civil Rights Act passed, but apparently Obama is only worthy of a few weeks.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:12:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This board is run by a lesbian

and a bunch of LGBT and allies.

Don't want to suggest that you not let the door hit you on the way out.  Please stay and try to learn.  

But if you don't like people pushing for LGBT equality on really incredibly simple things that will have no negative economic impact on the country (aside, perhaps, from a lowered GDP for not spending money to kick people out of the service based on sexual orientation), then I could suggest a place where you'd feel right at home.  

Those of us that straddle this board and Democratic Underground have realized over the last 18 months that no criticism, regardless of how mild, is allowed there.  Just go to the LGBT forum and report critical threads to any of the straight moderators there to keep the uppity gays under control.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:42:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your service Margaret

I was lucky enough to stay under the radar, if what I went through can be called "luck." I endured a sham straight marriage, and was blackmailed into coerced sex by another sailor when he stumbled upon my secret. I only served ten years because there was no way on God's green earth I was going to live with that anymore. It's the same reason I didn't go into the Reserves, despite my superiors begging me to. I had a flawless record, early promotes, 4.0 evals, impact awards, letters of recommendation from a one- and a two-star Admiral. I gave it all up because the pain of lying, and the fear of being caught, and the hell I was enduring to keep a secret was just too much. No one should have to live like that, especially citizens who just want to serve.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:14:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thank you Keori and Margaret too

Keori, do you know what happened to the guy that blackmailed you?

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 19:00:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No idea

I still work in the field as a civilian, so I'm sure I could look him up if I felt the need to. That's a pretty big IF. I'd like to spend some quality time getting to know his kneecaps with a Louisville slugger, but I'll settle for the look on his face once this policy is finally gone. (Sadly, he'll probably be retired from the service by the time that finally happens.)

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 19:42:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I survived 9 years

4 years active duty Navy and 5 years NROTC with the Marines before an injury forced me out.  The pain was bad, but the tears were from relief that I didn't have to lie any more.

While I was on active duty, the extremely homophobic master chief for my command set someone from my command to follow me around any time I did anything on liberty hoping to catch me doing something that he could use to kick me out.  My crime?  I was a friend of someone else that was getting kicked out.

Meanwhile, our flaming homosexual Lieutenant would make passes at anyone in the command that was gay and got away with it.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:46:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm still angry...

...after watching that yesterday. I was so upset, I sent President Obama a letter. Hopefully this isn't too long to post:

Dear President Obama,

I implore you to put a stop to the military discharges and witch hunts involving DADT. I do understand that reversing DADT is going to take time. But while the senate and congress are working out the details, there is absolutely no reason to allow military discharges to continue. To put it simply, American citizen's lives are being destroyed by this discriminatory 15 year old policy.

Yesterday, Rachel Maddow interviewed Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15 fighter pilot and 18-year veteran of the Air Force. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. This man is nothing short of being an American hero. After 18-years of service to our country this man is being discharged because of his sexual orientation. To say this is unacceptable is an understatement. The United States of America cannot let this happen to one of it's citizens.

Not only is he being slapped in the face by the country he loves. But now he is going to lose his lifetime pension that he would have earned in only two more years. I can't imagine our country would look the other way as this man's entire life is destroyed. Please tell me this isn't going to happen.

To be honest, I'm at a loss to understand why the discharges haven't been stopped already. I don't see a political downside to implementing this temporary stop-gap measure. If I'm to believe the White House, DADT is going to be repealed very soon. The public is clearly behind the repeal. Other countries have openly gay people serving in the military. To an outsider, such as myself, this should be a non-issue. Why is this simple solution being dismissed? Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach served for 18 years without his orientation being an issue. He has more than proven that a person's sexuality has NO barring on whether they can serve in the military.

Thank you for your time.

---

by: obtusegoose @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:59:04 PM CDT

responsibilty and the contempt towards troops.

   I'm not in blind rage, although my heart is choked up. Obama is just as responsible as any other politician for the actins that he takes. He's in the same boat as closeted gay republicans obstructing the rights of others. Once you take an oath or affirmation of office, you are open season to the guns of criticism. If you take a side in anything, even in small debates, you have total responsibility for your words. As some might have said earlier that he's just using the court as a way to bypass legislative forces that "can't cope" with another bill coming to the floor of the house, that is pure crap.

  If the government decides to take a stance against citizens of it's country, that minority has every right to be just as pissed as they are. I am becoming bitter every day to the fact that our current administration, and congress, as well as to some degree, the USSC, are slacking in their ways, even when 2/3 of our government is FULLY capable of granting me and others the right to declare my love for someone of the same gender as well as get the marriage status to prove my love.

  If I were to serve in the military, which I doubt, I wouldn't ever want to see myself or someone else fired due to some witch-hunt reminiscent of McCarthyism. Those fanatics of Obama who claim that he needs time apparently are apathetic to the nature of not having full de jure equality and the ability to marry who you love ( which IS the pursuit of happiness). They fool themselves and I pity them.  

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:17:15 PM CDT

So to all of the PISSED ones...such as I.

Go to THE DALLAS Principles and sign and live them.

And I want to see JOE S. Sign them tomorrow!  Geoff Kors, too, but since it will

be DAY of DECISION Day here in California he may be a bit too busy till next week,

at the latest ... HEAR Geoff? 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:36:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I saw Pam was on that list of Authors.

And it made my heart soar.  I was pleased to see it there and was surprised I hadn't seen mention of it here, but I was down with the flu for a few weeks and may have missed it.

GO PAM.

I just want to know who the 24th author is/was as they only listed 23 by name.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:30:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excuse me...

I resent the implication that we are "apathetic." Its called being realistic. I am a black American who's family originated in the South. My own parents had to wait a VERY LONG time to even get their humanity recognized. You have no idea of how many of my family served in a segregated often hostile military.

The fact is that, while people spoke out, they also required patience. Pressing for change is important. However, attacking people who are otherwise you allies just because they do not move at the speed YOU want them to, helps no one.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:45:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well sorry for having my own opinion, but...

it's pure shit when a government tells you that you can not be who you are because some loud religious minority has a death grip upon a president and a congress that was elected to represent everyone in our democracy. I don't agree at all with a bunch of old fools. no. Damned old fools who have inane inhibitions about other people serving the way that they are (not referencing you, I'm talking about the senior generals and Robert Gates). It's pure shit and you know it. Yes, so, your parents served in a hostile environment? I bet they would say what a current closeted soldier or officer in the military, will say: it's unfair and should never happen.

  The needs for laws that discriminate are not healthy for a society that is supposed to live up to guarantees of equality. If you serve your country, you take the same risks of anyone else. Why should you be kicked out for being who you are? we already know the answer and it's pointless to be preaching to the choir, therefore I'm not going to go into that.  

  Time waits for nobody and when you have a president and congress reneging on what they had vowed to do, you hold their feet to the fire. I understand your point but just sitting around doesn't do too much. Sometimes Idealism brings hope, which puts out flames of despair. But only if you do something about it like call, email, or walk-in to tell your opinion. I wouldn't go so far as to calling my viewpoint idealistic because it has facts of realism. It demands immediate attention. People's lives are being ruined and they might not ever be able to return to such a service after what happens.

 If Obama or any member of congress is out of office and nothing is done to improve the quality of our community, what will be done? more sitting around? no, that plan doesn't work. Inaction just provides more time for people who fight against our equality.  

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:08:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing is that ...

He has NOT reneged on the promises. In fact his administration is STILL saying that they want to repeal the ban. In fact the President PERSONALLY indicated that to one of the soldiers (and he did NOT have to do that).

The only thing that has been said is not right NOW. Its the NOW part that is the issue here. Obama is not out attacking LGBT folks or even dismissing us. In fact he still sends his staff to our events and actually confers with LGBT leaders. Indeed, at one of the Press briefings, Gibbs alloed the Advocate to ask a question knowing full well that it would be LGBT focused. That is NOT the actions of an administration trying to be dismissive or insulting. All they are asking for is patience.

Patience is the key here.  

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:24:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, they SAY they want to strike down the ban.

Their actions are directly counter to that.  Gates has said on the record that DADT is not being considered.  Just last week Gen. Jones said more or less that same thing.  Gibbs tap dances away from the subject every time it's raised.  Talk, as a wiser man than I once observed, is cheap.  

As for African Americans waiting for equality, well, yes--but they had to wait far too long.  Does that mean LGBT people should too?  I do believe it was an African American who asked, "If not now, when?"  That expression of impatience seems all too sound to me.  If someone, anyone in the Obama administration would give a signal when, we might have more patience.  But all we get is silence and inaction.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:38:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

SciFi, just step AWAY from the Kool Aid!

I don't give a flying fuck what they SAY!

They are discharging people solely for being gay THIS VERY MINUTE!!!

STOP with the goddamn phony hero hear no evil, see no evil monkey shit and stand up for your own people!!!!!!!!!!!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 17:09:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also I forgot to note

apathy is not the same as patience, and while patience may be a virtue to cherish, I think it's been long enough. It's time to stop waiting for our government to provide our opportunities, as well as stop depending upon obama. I don't regret all the canvassing that I did to help elect him, but I'm not content in having to see him turn his back on our community as if we were just political pawns that he and some other Dems see us as. Patience seems close to not caring at all and that's why I consider it close to apathy.  

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:15:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who's turning their back...

Just because something does not happen NOW, does not mean that it won't happen.

You know, given the scale of the problems that he has to deal with just now, you'd think that people would cut him some slack and let him deal with these crises.

This whole bruhaha has left quite a few allies bewildered as to why do this NOW when there is a staggering number of other issues that requires his immediate attention?

People gave Bill Clinton more slack and he had fewer problems to contend with.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:29:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes... but I'm a skeptic to Obama ever since the R Warren debacle

People gave Bill Clinton more slack and he had fewer problems to contend with.

yes, as well as a majority republican congress making it harder to even keep your job within the military. I'm not saying that DADT is the end-all to discrimination within the military against LGBT individuals. People would still be fired under some obscure military code.

I understand president Obama has a lot of items on his plate, but is it right to have people still denied full equality over who they profess to love, or as Keori bluntly put it "who they fuck in a private setting unrelated to their work"?

although I'm only 17, I don't want to be waiting a decade down the road with hardly any progress made on my civil rights due to political campaign promises or failed initiatives due to people's faith being put into civil government. I worry about those things. That's why I've written my governmental representatives.

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:56:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I repeat: If not now, when?

Just because something does not happen NOW, does not mean that it won't happen.

True enough.  But it doesn't mean it will, either.  Why not do everything we can to ensure that it does happen?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:41:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How long should LGBT people have to wait?

Did you know that the military executed gay people during the Revolutionary War?  Is 220 years long enough?  Or should we have to wait another couple hundred?

Give me a timeline that's acceptable to your sensibilities.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:54:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forwarded to KNIGHTS OUT...Thanks Keori.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:23:58 PM CDT

Didn't even think about it, thanks!

Lt.Col. Fehrenbach was ROTC, not Academy, and I was enlisted, so it didn't even occur to me to do so. Thanks, Orion.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:29:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's past time

It's ludicrous that the military would continue to discharge our heroes.  That's that LTC Fehrenbach is.  It's crazy to discharge people we need -- LT Dan Choi is someone we desperately need.  So is LT Sandy Tsao.  Every time someone is discharged under DADT is like one more bullet in the foot.

---

by: deannaizme @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:05:16 AM CDT