Federal judge halts enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” worldwide

posted at 4:52 pm on October 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not surprising. Remember, she’s already ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. The lingering question was whether it was unconstitutional only for the named plaintiffs in the case — i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans — or whether it’s unconstitutional for everyone. Surprise: “Unconstitutional” means unconstitutional.

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the U.S. military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops…

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips’ ruling stand…

“The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country,” said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.

Decision time for The One: Does he appeal or not? If he decides not to, he’ll undercut Gates’s insistence that no action should be taken on the policy until the Pentagon completes its review of the effects on readiness. If he does appeal, he’ll antagonize the lefties (especially young voters) whom he needs to turn out next month. The obvious solution is to punt and avoid a decision until after the election, but I’m not sure liberals will let him get away with that. What if the “professional left” mobilizes and demands a decision before November 2? Prediction: Heart-ache at the Pentagon.

Exit question: Is this actually a blessing in disguise for the GOP? We may well have a Republican majority in the Senate next year, and without this decision the survival of DADT would fall mainly on them. Their inclination will be to satisfy the social-con base and vote to keep it, but that would put them on the wrong side of public opinion (including Republican opinion) and would instantly destroy any chance of rapprochement with gay voters. The judge let them off the hook by taking the issue out of their hands. Abortion redux!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

You do know that it was within the lifetime of even the youngest people commenting here that homosexuality and homosexual acts WERE criminalized. And it’s just a hop, skip, and a jump from here to the FreeRepublic or WorldNetDaily to find people that would happily do so again and openly call for it.

It’s a little hard to say that it’s beyond the realm of belief that it could happen again.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I know this is a shock, but we criminalize activities all the time. and why should the gays complain? they’re now trying to criminalize christianity.

so if we can’t pass laws against sexual activity, what does that do to laws against pedophilia?

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Oh really, you know so much about the military then?
So tell me why did CID ask me about my roommate’s activities when there was a 15 yr old girl being passed around and she named him as one of the many people she “knew”?
.
Wanna hear about the middle school sex ring that was occuring on post?
.
Or why MPs like having sodomy as a chargeable offense (think 16yrd old “girlfriends”, legal but wrong)
.
Your ignorance is legion

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 9:09 PM

My ignorance is indeed legend.

Tell me about your middle school sex ring.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Violence against gays does happen.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Yes, it does. And when it does, it should be prosecuted under the law… just like it should for any other person victimized.

I don’t think anyone here is saying otherwise.

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Violence against gays does happen. Christians are not a persecuted minority. They are losing a place of privilege though. I can see where that feels like persecution.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:06 PM

you mean like that doctor in CA who lost his rights when the gays sued him? or the photographer in AZ? what about the catholic charities in MA? they can’t give adoptions anymore becasue their faith with regards to adoption is now illegal thanks to the gays.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Yes, it does. And when it does, it should be prosecuted under the law… just like it should for any other person victimized.

I don’t think anyone here is saying otherwise.

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM

‘zactly.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:17 PM

uh yeah right, go ahead and post this, this should be good…

you need professional help.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:10 PM

There was, it was just unfunded and unenforced. The legislature finally got around to repealing it outright… they probably were looking for stuff to do that wasn’t the budget.

http://californiascapitol.com/blog/?p=4139

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM

That’s great, okay, I loved, I would trade anything for the MRE and C-Ration Breakfast eggs. I…am…so glad I got that off my chest. Thanks Brothers.
hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 10:09 PM

The eggs?
That’s one hell of an addition addiction.
It’s all fun and games until somene has an impacted colon.

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM

@hawkdrive sorry nope wasn’t ignoring ur question just made a long post for Right4life and there were to many links in it so it is in moderation now.
One you can look up matthew shepard, your on a computer with an internet connection. But here you go

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM

It’s a little hard to say that it’s beyond the realm of belief that it could happen again.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I never said that it “couldn’t happen again,” I said that Republicans aren’t advocating it now, as was stated by the commenter.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM

@right4life for the love of baby jesus why can’t you master the idea of ‘age of consent’ ?????
is this why priests rape children? does christianity make you stupid?

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM

The eggs?
That’s one hell of an addition addiction.
It’s all fun and games until somene has an impacted colon.

LincolntheHun

My buddy swears he didn’t shit for 4 weeks eating on that chow

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:22 PM

you mean like that doctor in CA who lost his rights when the gays sued him? or the photographer in AZ? what about the catholic charities in MA? they can’t give adoptions anymore becasue their faith with regards to adoption is now illegal thanks to the gays.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:15 PM

The doctor was using a public hospital. You don’t get to discriminate against citizens when using public funds or facilities. Sorry. Those are the rules. Go to a private hospital and a fully private clinic if you want to do otherwise.

I confess that I’m not sure know anything about the photographer in AZ that you mentioned. Are you referring to the woman who took the controversial pictures of the dead horses?

As far as Catholic charities go – and I assure you I have every sympathy for them – they were not ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state and if they wanted to do so with public support and funding they need to do so without discrimination against citizens that are legally able to adopt.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:22 PM

@29Victor yes they are advocating it!

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I never said that it “couldn’t happen again,” I said that Republicans aren’t advocating it now, as was stated by the commenter.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Errrr… I don’t know about where you are but they certainly are here in Texas. And there was another state recently in the news that has a state GOP platform of criminalization of homosexuality ….

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

There was, it was just unfunded and unenforced. The legislature finally got around to repealing it outright… they probably were looking for stuff to do that wasn’t the budget.

http://californiascapitol.com/blog/?p=4139

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM

a treatment for homosexuality is not exactly what you portrayed….

also no until last week there was a Law on the
books of California that sought to find a medical solution to get rid of gays. It is not the only one.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 9:58 PM

homosexuality is not an inborn condition, its not genetic, or it would have been bred out of the population long ago.

it used to be considered a mental disorder by the american psychological association…of course it was changed for political reasons, not scientific.

given the lifespan and health problems of the gay community, why shouldn’t it be treated and cured, especially since I am going to be required to pay for your treatment.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM
My ignorance is indeed legend.

.

Tell me about your middle school sex ring.

Not mine, but it occurred on a post in Kentucky.
Kiddies decided to make some extra money with each other, but not everyone was being paid, girl complained to her father who brought it to the Provost Marshall’s attention, and things got ugly fast.
Several people were asked to retire, few others were told to retire, several families were barred from post, and lots of General Officer Letters of Reprimand were handed out.

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Violence against gays does happen. Christians are not a persecuted minority. They are losing a place of privilege though. I can see where that feels like persecution.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Yes. Violence and bigotry happens everywhere, I never said that it didn’t. But your instances to not “oppression” make. Did you hear about the white couple that was raped, tortured and killed by blacks a couple of years ago? Michelle covered it quite thoroughly, but the MSM for the most part ignored it.

How ’bout those Black Panthers that threatened white voters that the DOJ refuses to prosecute?

Heck, I’ve been singled out and picked on for being white.

Does this mean that there is an oppression of Whites in America equal to that of Blacks in the ’60s, or of Christians in the Middle East? I hardly think so.

In not one of your examples was someone killed, in not one did the media or government turn a blind eye or side with the perpetrators.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:26 PM

@29Victor if we gays were assured of equal protection under the law I would take heart in that however as both members of the Supreme Court and several federal judges the obvious imbalances suggest the need for government intervention on behalf of it’s citizens. Which I believe should be attributed to a side note written by Justice Conner.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM

given the lifespan and health problems of the gay community, why shouldn’t it be treated and cured, especially since I am going to be required to pay for your treatment.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Ahahahahaha. Are you sure nobody here wants to criminalize homosexuality 29victor? Or maybe just confine them to bedlam?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM

The doctor was using a public hospital. You don’t get to discriminate against citizens when using public funds or facilities. Sorry. Those are the rules. Go to a private hospital and a fully private clinic if you want to do otherwise.

where do you get that at? it was at his clinic where he refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian. according to the CA supreme court he doesn’t have any religous freedom compared to the gays.

As far as Catholic charities go – and I assure you I have every sympathy for them – they were not ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state and if they wanted to do so with public support and funding they need to do so without discrimination against citizens that are legally able to adopt.

again where do you get they were using public funds? and why don’t they have the freedom to grant adoptions according to their religious convictions? what is next religious liberty to go under the gay sharia people like you are trying to impose.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Ahahahahaha. Are you sure nobody here wants to criminalize homosexuality 29victor? Or maybe just confine them to bedlam?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM

tell me why should we criminalize pedophilia then? isn’t pedophilia just another sexual orientation? hmmmm??

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Homosexuals are virtuously peaceful by nature and would never attack Christians.

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

@29Victor I suppose I could mention Harvey Milk and the Twinkie defense. two dead folk there. Um if you don’t believe that gays are regularly attacked, beaten, and killed, try this for fun, hold your buddies hand and walk down any street.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

In not one of your examples was someone killed, in not one did the media or government turn a blind eye or side with the perpetrators.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:26 PM

I actually feel quite sad for you that you appear to believe that it requires a murder to be persecution or oppression. That you can’t look around to see wrecked lives, destroyed families, and ruined careers in the wake of the suicides, torture, rapes, etc. that I listed … all of which occurred in the past two months …

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM

The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.

Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California’s anti-discrimination law.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5604598&page=1

so much for freedom of religion in the new gay sharia society.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM

@29Victor if we gays were assured of equal protection under the law I would take heart in that however as both members of the Supreme Court and several federal judges the obvious imbalances suggest the need for government intervention on behalf of it’s citizens. Which I believe should be attributed to a side note written by Justice Conner.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Right now gays have more “protection under the law” then I do. The rest of your comment doesn’t make much sense.

Are you saying that liberal justices calling for federal intervention proves that that intervention is necessary? If you are, they you aren’t a Republican voter like you claim.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:32 PM

tell me why should we criminalize pedophilia then? isn’t pedophilia just another sexual orientation? hmmmm??

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Ahahhah. No. It’s not. And a child isn’t able to legally consent. There is certainly a victim. If you cannot morally distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality than might I suggest you seek some serious guidance from a moral theologian, priest, or rabbi?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:33 PM

The eggs?
That’s one hell of an addition addiction.
It’s all fun and games until somene has an impacted colon.

LincolntheHun

My buddy swears he didn’t shit for 4 weeks eating on that chow

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Tabasco sauce. Now it is in all of them, but at one time you had to either beg or be prepared to not use toilet paper for several days.

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 10:33 PM

@hawkdriver they were anarchists… everyone goes through an anarchist are cool phase. Also kissing at a podium and hanging a profane banner is hardly the same as having your head beaten in

honestly could you read that rightwingnews also without giggling?

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM

is this why priests rape children? does christianity make you stupid?

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM

No, that’s the “gay” aspect.

(hey, if you make gratuitous attacks, so can I)

@29Victor yes they are advocating it!

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM

And if a lot of left-wing sources say the GOP wants to do it, it must be true, especially right before an election.

Not going to waste my time wading through those sites. You have a link to an original GOP source that says it wants to criminalize homosexuality?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM

My buddy swears he didn’t shit for 4 weeks eating on that chow

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Well, Zeke, as a certified combat life saver, I have to tell you that if it was really four weeks, that your buddy died. I’m not sure who told you the story but four weeks without a BM is fatal.

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Not mine, but it occurred on a post in Kentucky.
Kiddies decided to make some extra money with each other, but not everyone was being paid, girl complained to her father who brought it to the Provost Marshall’s attention, and things got ugly fast.
Several people were asked to retire, few others were told to retire, several families were barred from post, and lots of General Officer Letters of Reprimand were handed out.

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

You mean… people had to leave the service, not for their behavior but because of other people’s behavior?

Sounds like a violation of “civil rights”. Where the hell was Judge Phillips?

Well, in any case, I guess there are actually legitimate reasons not to put a bunch of pedophiles in the service.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Whateve the source, it really happened. Are you saying there are fringe gays?

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

again where do you get they were using public funds? and why don’t they have the freedom to grant adoptions according to their religious convictions? what is next religious liberty to go under the gay sharia people like you are trying to impose.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Errrr… because they were. It was in the court case. And again – Catholic charities isn’t ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state – it’s a legal procedure and not a sacrament. If they are going to perform a public service they perform it for all citizens that are legally eligible for that service. Period. If they have religious objections to doing such then they need to move along and allow somebody else to do so. Which they did.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

@29Victor no there is a perceived disparity of benefit, but it doesn’t actually exist. If it did we wouldn’t be cheering a lower court ruling on our behalf, or disparaging the president that claimed he was a fierce advocate, yet can’t turn down an anti gay case

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Not going to waste my time wading through those sites. You have a link to an original GOP source that says it wants to criminalize homosexuality?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Texas state GOP platform. And was it .. ummm…. wyoming? minnesota? There was another one on here a few weeks ago. I believe AP brought it up and everybody whined that he was gaying the place up.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

@Hawkdriver that’s what I told him but his story sounded much better. Besides it was Navy I figured they went easy on them.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:39 PM

I can’t post for some reason. TEST

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 10:40 PM

I actually feel quite sad for you that you appear to believe that it requires a murder to be persecution or oppression. That you can’t look around to see wrecked lives, destroyed families, and ruined careers in the wake of the suicides, torture, rapes, etc. that I listed … all of which occurred in the past two months …

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Yes, please, I need your pity.

I heard the same thing from Muslim coworkers after 9/11. Numerous accounts of torture and killing of Muslims by anti-Muslim bigots. Every crime against a Muslim was because they were Muslim. Every crime against them was a hate crime. Other Americans weren’t treated like that, and on, and on, and on…

You listed one horrible incident that (you claim) was motivated by the victim’s orientation, a couple of bullying cases (’cause no one else is bullied for being different), a gay man beaten (but you didn’t say that he was beaten because he was gay) and a “gaybashing.”

I see “wrecked lives, destroyed families, and ruined careers” all the time, for a variety of reasons. If you haven’t noticed, a lot of people are really, really horrible and hurt others for a variety of reason.

To compare what you’ve listed to institutionalized, governmental, societal and/or media oppression is an insult to those who actually have or do suffer under it.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM

deudonne- you don’t care what damage is done as long as you ‘win’. puke.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM

@Hawkdriver of course there are fringe gays, and there are gays that like fringe.

I mean it’s not like I expect every straight person to act like the do in New Orleans on Mardi Gra. Or blame all breeders for giving us Beiber.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM

so much for your ‘public hospital’ theory..

Benitez sued The North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group of San Diego, which had an exclusive contract with her health insurance plan. Also named in the suit were two of the clinic’s doctors — Dr. Doug Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody — who lawyers say had a constitutional right to refuse a procedure that violated their religious beliefs.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:42 PM

@right4life for the love of baby jesus why can’t you master the idea of ‘age of consent’ ?????
is this why priests rape children? does christianity make you stupid?

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM

why can’t you get it through your head that a judge can throw those age of consent laws out in a NY minute???

oh but then you think karl marx is a great guy… :rolleyes:

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Not going to waste my time wading through those sites. You have a link to an original GOP source that says it wants to criminalize homosexuality?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM

You beat me to it.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:43 PM

deudonne- you don’t care what damage is done as long as you ‘win’.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM

That’s what really ticks me off.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Errrr… because they were. It was in the court case. And again – Catholic charities isn’t ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state – it’s a legal procedure and not a sacrament. If they are going to perform a public service they perform it for all citizens that are legally eligible for that service. Period. If they have religious objections to doing such then they need to move along and allow somebody else to do so. Which they did.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

errrr you’re a liar.

so what other rights do christians have that we’re not entitled to in the eyes of the gay movement? hmmmm??

sounds like you would been a big supporter of nazi germany…after all they passed laws to do what they did.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:45 PM

deudonne- you don’t care what damage is done as long as you ‘win’.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM
That’s what really ticks me off.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Yep. Just another “smartest man in the room”.

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM

To compare what you’ve listed to institutionalized, governmental, societal and/or media oppression is an insult to those who actually have or do suffer under it.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM

You are quite right. It’s been 40 years since a homosexual man was forcibly electroshocked to treat his homosexuality and there were routine police raids on gay bars to have fun beating a few sissies. The legal framework for such persecution is largely gone but that doesn’t mean that persecution and violence don’t happen. And as far as societal oppression … well… you know those gang bangers that tortured those people and raped two of them with baseball bats thought they had a right to do so because they thought those people were gay … that speaks to a society that – at least in parts – hasn’t fully excised the opprobrium that was formerly used to buttress legal oppression.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM
You mean… people had to leave the service, not for their behavior but because of other people’s behavior?

The theory is if you can’t control your children how can you lead soldiers?
Same with the occasional wife that decides to have “fun” while hubby is away. She gets kicked off post, he may not be punished via UCMJ but if you receive a GO letter of Reprimand for you wife’s (bouncing checks all over post, setting up a drug lab, DUI, sleeping with several members of the post rifle team at the same time) behavior, your career in the military is effectively over.

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM

@29Victor *blinks* you do not seem to know much about history but gays were systematically found, tortured, outed and killed through the dark ages up until very recent modern times. Do you know the only group that was sent back to prison after the freed the concentration camps? gays, you want to know who is blamed for attacking children, gays. You want to know what would get you kicked out of the military or government service up until the 1970′s being gay. The list goes on and on, the dead stack up like cord wood. I’ve already had two of my friends end their lives because their families rejected them. I don’t want to keep seeing dead kids in my dreams. Equality over time will help with this.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:47 PM

@29Victor no there is a perceived disparity of benefit, but it doesn’t actually exist. If it did we wouldn’t be cheering a lower court ruling on our behalf, or disparaging the president that claimed he was a fierce advocate, yet can’t turn down an anti gay case

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Again, either I need to slow down on the beer or you need to master the art of proper punctuation. What are you saying here? That if homosexuals had more protections than me already then they wouldn’t be wanting even more and be happy that a judge gave them to them? Really?

Heh. I like you, you’re silly.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Ahahhah. No. It’s not. And a child isn’t able to legally consent. There is certainly a victim. If you cannot morally distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality than might I suggest you seek some serious guidance from a moral theologian, priest, or rabbi?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:33 PM

apparently the fonder of GLSEN, the SAFE SCHOOL CZAR for IMAM OBAMA sure can’t, now can he?

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I mean it’s not like I expect every straight person to act like the do in New Orleans on Mardi Gra.

Good, because there are no “gay” attendees to Mardi Gras! Right? But I agree, MG is almost as sick as that Fulsom Street Fair that those radical militant gays have.

Or blame all breeders for giving us Beiber.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Why the name calling my friend. I’m not allowed to use derogatory terms for fear of the hammer here. I try never to name call anyway. You seem to use them pretty easily.

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 10:48 PM

That’s what really ticks me off.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Yep. Just another “smartest man in the room”.

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Ever consider the possibility that what I think is best for America and our society is to have a legal system in which there is not discrimination against homosexuals? That I might earnestly believe that they are entitled to the the dignity and respect that heterosexuals are and that the state should largely not be concerned with any differences between the two?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Night Haters, off to sleep

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

I’ve spent a lot of time out of the country. Who’s Matthew Sheppard?

hawkdriver

He was a victim of murder, just like thousands of people before and after him. But his murder means more because he was gay. See, straight people aren’t quite as dead as gay people when it comes to murder.

xblade on October 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Do you know the only group that was sent back to prison after the freed the concentration camps? gays,

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:47 PM

given the large number of gays in the nazi heirarchy…like Hess, Streicher, Goring….

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM

breeders is not a derogatory term. Neither is crotch fruit but I’m not allowed to use it around my god children anymore.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM

errrr you’re a liar.

so what other rights do christians have that we’re not entitled to in the eyes of the gay movement? hmmmm??

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Errr… no I’m not. They received public funding from the foster care system and to help with adoptions.

And nobody is ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state – not any group for any reason. Adoption is a legal process not a sacramental one.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Ever consider the possibility that what I think is best for America and our society is to have a legal system in which there is not discrimination against homosexuals? That I might earnestly believe that they are entitled to the the dignity and respect that heterosexuals are and that the state should largely not be concerned with any differences between the two?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

there is no discrimination against gays in this country. in fact they are a protected minority, very well off, very powerful, and rich.

as an example, write your HR department at any big company, and complain about their gay-friendly policies…

and see how long it takes you to be fired.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Errr… no I’m not. They received public funding from the foster care system and to help with adoptions.

And nobody is ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state – not any group for any reason. Adoption is a legal process not a sacramental one.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:51 PM

I said you’re a liar about the doctor in CA using a public hospital. reading is fundamental. and apparently lying is fundamental for you.

so how many rights do want to LEGALLY eliminate for christians?

don’t you understand that whether its ‘legal’ or not, its limiting the religious freedom of people? but you don’t care about the freedom of those who disagree with you, in fact you’re a fascist who wants to eliminate the freedom of those who disagree.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:53 PM

there is no discrimination against gays in this country. in fact they are a protected minority, very well off, very powerful, and rich.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Depends very much on your definition of discrimination. Mine would include the inability to serve openly in the military or to draw up private marriage contracts recognized and enforced by the state – same as heterosexuals.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:54 PM

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Have a good day sir =)

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:54 PM

oh and I don’t know whether the catholic charities received public funding for adoptions…what does that matter in regard to their religious freedom?

does public funding mean you lose your constitutional rights???

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:55 PM

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:22 PM

I was not aware that Catholic Charities(adoption) took government money per se. I thought it was just what the name implies–charity. If they took public funds then I agree with you. If they did not,and donations were voluntary, they should have been allowed to follow their religous dictates and apply or modify their own rules as they chose.

jeanie on October 12, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Depends very much on your definition of discrimination. Mine would include the inability to serve openly in the military or to draw up private marriage contracts recognized and enforced by the state – same as heterosexuals.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:54 PM

of course your definition of discrimination would include reading biblical passages that say homosexuality is a sin, no doubt.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:56 PM

@29Victor *blinks* you do not seem to know much about history but gays were systematically found, tortured, outed and killed through the dark ages up until very recent modern times. Do you know the only group that was sent back to prison after the freed the concentration camps? gays, you want to know who is blamed for attacking children, gays. You want to know what would get you kicked out of the military or government service up until the 1970′s being gay. The list goes on and on, the dead stack up like cord wood. I’ve already had two of my friends end their lives because their families rejected them. I don’t want to keep seeing dead kids in my dreams. Equality over time will help with this.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Ha, ha, ha. You, apparently don’t much about the history of EVERYONE! In fact, you don’t seem to know too much about the history of our conversation. I never said that homosexuals haven’t been oppressed in the past, that would just be stupid. Heck, I never even said that people don’t commit crimes against homosexuals because of their orientation, that would also be stupid.

But my ancestors were killed oppressed and killed for being Germans in Russia, for being protestants in Europe and for being Irish pretty much anywhere. My Russian-German relations were raped, tortured and killed in Russia during WWII by the government of our ally, and afterward things didn’t get much better when East Germany was handed over to the Soviets.

But what the heck does that have to do with conditions in America right now? Nothing.

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Okay, and I know absolutely nothing about the proper use of block quotes.

/blushes

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM

@right4life my reply to you came through as the last comment on page 4

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM

He was a victim of murder, just like thousands of people before and after him. But his murder means more because he was gay. See, straight people aren’t quite as dead as gay people when it comes to murder.

xblade on October 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

BING!

29Victor on October 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Errrr… because they were. It was in the court case. And again – Catholic charities isn’t ENTITLED to conduct adoptions on behalf of the state – it’s a legal procedure and not a sacrament. If they are going to perform a public service they perform it for all citizens that are legally eligible for that service. Period. If they have religious objections to doing such then they need to move along and allow somebody else to do so. Which they did.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I can’t prove the negative. But I’ve seen no evidence that Catholic Charities took public funds, and I have about a million lefties in Massachusetts who would freak out about the separation of church and state.

So, I call BS.

Catholic Charities chose not to place children with gay couples, and the state refused to license them. They were fine until some damn judge decided to require other licensees of the state to perform gay “marriage”, at that point a ten year old non-descrimination statute kicked in.

Oh, and I think your idea that anyone places children “on behalf of the state” is pathetic.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM

I was not aware that Catholic Charities(adoption) took government money per se. I thought it was just what the name implies–charity. If they took public funds then I agree with you. If they did not,and donations were voluntary, they should have been allowed to follow their religous dictates and apply or modify their own rules as they chose.

jeanie on October 12, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Catholic charities almost always take on public funds in every area they can. The idea that the church has a lot of wealth is .. lets just say it’s a little misguided. And most of what “wealth” they do have is tied up in real estate and artwork – i.e. Churches and icons/statuary.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:00 PM

breeders is not a derogatory term. Neither is crotch fruit but I’m not allowed to use it around my god children anymore.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM

I find it offensive. Would you please not use it? And why would you say “crotch fruit” in front of children anyway?

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I can’t prove the negative. But I’ve seen no evidence that Catholic Charities took public funds, and I have about a million lefties in Massachusetts who would freak out about the separation of church and state.
applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM

They accepted money from the foster care system to care for the children until they were adopted or placed in a foster home. It’s not a separation of church and state issue until they deny services using that public money. We found all sorts of ways to creatively apply for and get Fed and state money when I worked with the Diocese of CC.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Oh, and I think your idea that anyone places children “on behalf of the state” is pathetic.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM

It may be pathetic but ummm … you might want to look into some of the foundation ideas of adoption law. You would probably be horrified. It doesn’t play nicely with modern 21st century ideas of humanity.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Depends very much on your definition of discrimination. Mine would include the inability to serve openly in the military or to draw up private marriage contracts recognized and enforced by the state – same as heterosexuals.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Fast and loose with the facts. Heterosexuals are not permitted to marry others of the same gender either. Except in states where courts have forced it.

Heterosexuals will also be booted from the military if they state they like to have sex with people of the same gender.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Fast and loose with the facts. Heterosexuals are not permitted to marry others of the same gender either. Except in states where courts have forced it.

Heterosexuals will also be booted from the military if they state they like to have sex with people of the same gender.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Yes. And I do consider it a form of discrimination to permit heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage.

As far as your second point .. I’m confused .. if a heterosexual has sex with somebody of the same sex doesn’t that make them … you know … not heterosexual? Aren’t they bi at the very least?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:06 PM

@hawkdriver (yes I said I was going to bed sorry) if it offends you I won’t use it. As to the term crotch fruit, my best friend their father loved it so much we took to using it until his wife insisted we didn’t.
sorry after a night of being called a fascist it seemed tame.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Okay, there was public funding for Catholic Charities, but it wasn’t a factor:

From there, it was only a short step to the headline “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business,” which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:08 PM

@applebutter gays can be kicked out without admitting they were gay, and the fact is central to this case. Please make sure to read the briefs before commenting on the trial.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM

For my part – I won’t object to the term breeder as long as others are permitted to use demeaning terms for homosexuals on here.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I have 2 adopted children(grown now). At the time we were looking to adopt I was told by Catholic Charities that because we were not Catholic, that they would not place children with us so not to apply. We accepted that and successfully turned to other routes. I think/would have thought it wrong to impose my wishes on the Church by means of the law even had that been possible. I still think so. Do you think that it’s alright to impose restrictions on acceptable parents of other faiths but not alright to impose restrictions on otherwise acceptable gay couples–Catholic or not?

jeanie on October 12, 2010 at 11:10 PM

@applebutter it may not matter in an opinion column however it is central to the running of a secular government. Before responding please remember the centuries of warfare that occurred without separation of church and state.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:11 PM

“Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

SEEEEEEE … public funds and state contractor. And I know that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said it didn’t make a difference but the judge said otherwise in the ruling (That I HAD to read to a settle a bet for a fiver) AUSCS is not exactly the neutral ruling party here.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:12 PM

@dieudonne a sensible line however in the effort to build bridges I choose to acknowledge the request to continue the dialog. Most people are not against gay people in the singular, they fear what they perceive, even if it is discordant with the facts. Also thank you for your support on this thread I have enjoyed and benefited from you being here. *a thousand blessings*

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Do you think that it’s alright to impose restrictions on acceptable parents of other faiths but not alright to impose restrictions on otherwise acceptable gay couples–Catholic or not?

jeanie on October 12, 2010 at 11:10 PM

If they are acting as a state contractor and the citizens in question meet every legal standard and test for adoption I would consider them obliged to not use a restrictive religious test.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:15 PM

@applebutter gays can be kicked out without admitting they were gay, and the fact is central to this case. Please make sure to read the briefs before commenting on the trial.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Read the briefs yourself. And read my comments. Or better yet, get someone to read them to you. I don’t think I ever wrote that someone had to say they were gay to get booted. I did say that if a heterosexual made such a statement, he or she would be booted.

I know that sounds tricky. Have someone read that to you twice so you understand.

But if you can find where I said that someone had to say they were gay to get booted under DADT, I’ll apologize.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:15 PM

And as far as societal oppression … well… you know those gang bangers that tortured those people and raped two of them with baseball bats thought they had a right to do so because they thought those people were gay that speaks to a society that – at least in parts – hasn’t fully excised the opprobrium that was formerly used to buttress legal oppression.

What it says is you’re a liar. Is society telling them it’s ok to commit robbery, and torture cats too?

Mendez was charged with robbery in 2005 and with gun possession in 2007 and 2009, records show. Neighbors at his E. 197th St. building described Mendez rounding up friends to torture a stray cat two months ago. “One of the cat’s eyes was out and one of these [guys] was poking its eye socket with a stick,” said the neighbor. “They were cheering like they just scored a touchdown.”

And you wonder why people are concerned about gays in the military. Clearly some of you aren’t playing with a full deck.

xblade on October 12, 2010 at 11:16 PM

@jeanie it is not wrong to expect nondiscriminatory service if the charity is receiving public funds.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Not at all.

And a very sensible decision on your part.

Have a good night and sleep well… I’m off to bed as well …

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:17 PM

And you wonder why people are concerned about gays in the military. Clearly some of you aren’t playing with a full deck.

xblade on October 12, 2010 at 11:16 PM

I’m not homosexual.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM

@applebutter I apologize if I misread your comment, it did appear that you were saying that gays had to announce they were gay to be kicked out. If that were the case the law would not be the affront that it is. However in respect to equality heterosexuals are not booted from the military if it is revealed or if they reveal that they are heterosexual. Nor are they discharged if their wives or husbands are brought to military ceremonies or homecomings.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

@dieudonne those who are about to die salute you. Good night and thank you.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Neighbors at his E. 197th St. building described Mendez rounding up friends to torture a stray cat two months ago. “One of the cat’s eyes was out and one of these [guys] was poking its eye socket with a stick,” said the neighbor. “They were cheering like they just scored a touchdown.

A very small part of society obviously approved and cheered them on – not society as a whole but the society they formed around themselves. This ill child didn’t seem to have trouble rounding up friends to torture animals – and those gang bangers didn’t have trouble convincing one another that it was acceptable to rape and brutalize people for being gay. Both of these things speak of very twisted and ill social circles – not of society as a whole.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM

And with that I really am off to have another few ounces of gin and a good sleep … Be well all! (Yes even CW, Right4Life, and anyone else I felt earned a silent treatment for the night.)

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Ah well, it’s not the Boy Scouts I guess. It’s a shame that the C. Church was forced out of adoption activities since I know quite a few parents whose children arrived in this manner. Quite frankly, and I have no personal objections to gay adoption, but I think it was a selfish move on the part of gay advocates and sadly removed a reliable source for finding good homes for children in MA especially since there were other agencies that did not have this prohibition. It’s a case of ‘if I can’t have it, nobody can’.

jeanie on October 12, 2010 at 11:24 PM

@applebutter it may not matter in an opinion column however it is central to the running of a secular government. Before responding please remember the centuries of warfare that occurred without separation of church and state.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Ummm. Think of the 20th century where several atheist regimes murdered more than 100 million people. For the record, thats more people than have ever died in all the very worst theocracies.

I am not advocating a state religion. Any faith that I would pick wouldn’t be fair to those who practice some other religion, and it wouldn’t be fair to Atheists either.

But fairness is not reflected in the removal of iconography from all public buildings. Fairness isn’t served by banning Christmas decorations.

Try to get back to the subject. I believe you were arguing for activist civilian judges to guarantee private buggery rights for homosexual soldiers.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:25 PM

@applebutter I apologize if I misread your comment, it did appear that you were saying that gays had to announce they were gay to be kicked out. If that were the case the law would not be the affront that it is. However in respect to equality heterosexuals are not booted from the military if it is revealed or if they reveal that they are heterosexual. Nor are they discharged if their wives or husbands are brought to military ceremonies or homecomings.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Not a problem. Heat of the battle, and all that.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:27 PM

…However in respect to equality heterosexuals are not booted from the military if it is revealed or if they reveal that they are heterosexual. Nor are they discharged if their wives or husbands are brought to military ceremonies or homecomings.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

I’m pretty sure it’s been mentioned, but it bears repeating. Heterosexual relations is actually what causes children to be born.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7