President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.
He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
[…]
Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.He expressed strong support for the Human Rights Campaign agenda – ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people – but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.
“My expectation is that when you look back on these years you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination … whether in the office or the battlefield,” Obama said.
#54
Yes he could change it with an executive order. It would for the courts to decide if the Constitution had a problem with it.
Can you name a case that has already been decide to state differently?
64
Opps I just looked into it and I was wrong sorry I should google first and post second.
#63, Unfortunately, there is a decent size contingent of people in the US that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative
Those are mutually exclusive. If you are socially liberal, you are for welfare programs. Welfare programs cost money. That money comes from fiscally liberal laws.
#67 They only seem mutually exclusive when you can only visualize things in black or white.
The benefit of being a liberal is you get to see shades of gray. Sorry schmuck, but the world is analog not digital.
#68, Schmuck? If you want people to take you seriously, perhaps you should be a bit more civil.
But let’s move on past that for now.
Perhaps you can explain to me how our liberal society with its $1.5T social program is fiscally conservative?
LibertyLover, I should have realized that your your Keynes have nothing to do with his economic theories, but was simply personal.
Thomas said “Unfortunately, there is a decent size contingent of people in the US that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative and right now, there is no party that represents those views.” There is no party like that but you should take a look at the independent and libertarian types in the mountain states like Montana. They support smaller, fiscally responsible governments and same sex marriage. They drive bigots on both sides of the aisles crazy.
#70, I should have realized that your your Keynes have nothing to do with his economic theories, but was simply personal.
Where do you get that? He, personally, said those things. Are you accusing me of gay-bashing? Is that like being called a racist because I don’t agree with Obama?
If you haven’t seen my stance on gays on this board, you’ve been asleep.
There is no party like that but you should take a look at the independent and libertarian types in the mountain states like Montana. They support smaller, fiscally responsible governments and same sex marriage. They drive bigots on both sides of the aisles crazy.
I don’t consider same-sex marriages to be “socially liberal.” I consider them conservative because if the government wasn’t involved, it wouldn’t be an issue.
#67
On the contrary, I consider welfare to be fiscally liberal. Government spending is almost always fiscally liberal. Socially liberal means that you do not have government intruding into your life, that government should not favor religion nor outdated notions based on religion such as what it thinks ideal marriage should be. Once upon a time people that considered themselves socially conservative had some of these notions. The current batch of social conservatives think porn and video games are the great evil in the world along with seeing a breast on TV.
LibertyLover said “Are you accusing me of gay-bashing?”
No, I said it was personal. You dislike him and the way he lived his life. Most of your criticisms has been of a personal nature.
You may disagree with his activist approach to reducing the amplitude of ups and downs in the economic cycle. Knock yourself out. To criticize the man as a hedonist, bisexual who criticized the bible has nothing to do with the faults or insights of his economic theories.
#72, On the contrary, I consider welfare to be fiscally liberal. Government spending is almost always fiscally liberal.
Agreed.
Socially liberal means that you do not have government intruding into your life, that government should not favor religion nor outdated notions based on religion such as what it thinks ideal marriage should be.
I will accept your definition at face value but I don’t agree with it. Gun laws, welfare, healthcare, etc. all intrude in our lives because they take from some to give to others.
Once upon a time people that considered themselves socially conservative had some of these notions. The current batch of social conservatives think porn and video games are the great evil in the world along with seeing a breast on TV.
Good point. I consider those Republicans 🙂
#73, No, I said it was personal. You dislike him and the way he lived his life. Most of your criticisms has been of a personal nature.
Not really. I was merely pointing out where he got his ideas from.
I could care less how he lived his life as long as he didn’t violate the Rights of others. That has been my stance on all issues.
That being said, I did disapprove of his theories before I found out his personal history.
#75, And, yes, when the government loots me, I do take it personal. So, I guess in a way, it is a personal problem with me 🙂
LibertyLover said
“Not really. I was merely pointing out where he got his ideas from.
I could care less how he lived his life as long as he didn’t violate the Rights of others. That has been my stance on all issues.”
Wow, that is passive-aggressive. If you really didn’t care you wouldn’t have brought it up. Repeatedly.
#77, What? I think you’re digging. I really don’t care. What I do care about is his ideas. When they interfere with MY lifestyle, then there is a problem.
#71, Loser,
#70, I should have realized that your your Keynes have nothing to do with his economic theories, but was simply personal.
Where do you get that? He, personally, said those things. Are you accusing me of gay-bashing??
So far all I’ve read from you are accusations that Keyenes was this or that. You haven’t posted any quotes from him or even cited where you got your blurb in #66. That is, if that is a citation from somewhere else instead of something else you pulled out your butt.
The President can not change “Don’t ask, don’t tell” on his own. It would require an act of Congress to repeal the law.
Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)
So when is he coming out of the closet?
Okay so maybe that isn’t going to happen but the problem is I no longer know what to think of this man. I no longer believe anything he says and almost nothing he might do would surprise me.
I think he is a long legged Mac daddy who will say anything to achieve his objective which might not have a thing to do with what he’s promising or just got through claiming to stand for. In fact his long range objective might be the reverse of what he is promising. I’m down to believing him when he does something and three other sources confirm it.
>> Michael_gr said,
>> When is he going to get around to, you know, actually do stuff, as opposed to speaking and appearing on talk shows?
You mean like preventing an even worst depression than that last Great Depression?
That alone makes him 1000% better than Bush.
Gays are Americans
So, they deserve all the rights of Americans.
For me, it’s that simple.
It doesn’t matter if you or James Dobson think gays are icky. They are Americans… let them have their equal rights.
In all fairness, I’d be more than happy for the 60%-70% of gay people who behave normally to have “equal rights”.
Even gay people know a certain percentage of gay people act atrociously.
That’s really the barrier.
I don’t want state-endorsed weird shit in public or taught in the schools.
Go to any major city and the people who ruin the parks for families are gay men doing weird shit in the bushes or on the beaches or in the bathrooms.
I know those people aren’t the majority of gay people, but they’d use new found “rights” to cause more problems and do more lawsuits.
#79, I don’t recall giving you permission to talk to me until you answer why you would sacrifice others for your wife.
#83-Greg Allen-they (gays) deserve all the rights of Americans.
Homosexuals already have the same rights as other Americans, it’s the special rights that are in question.
What is it about deviant behavior that leads you to believe some people are more worthy of extra rights not afforded to everyone else?
#86, Loser,
Yup. You pulled it out of your butt. Just another lie from another idiot.
#84, Meyers,
From your post it appears you only want behavior that agrees with YOU.
I don’t see you criticizing heterosexuals because of what some do. I guess you don’t have a “red light” district where you live. I also don’t see you criticizing heterosexuals for what many think is deviant sexual behavior including exactly what homosexuals do.
No, it appears your tone is more bigoted than merely wanting safe sex. Missionary style. Woman’s legs straight on the bed. Lights turned out. Kids asleep. And married to each other.
#87-Mr Fusion-Just another lie from another idiot.
Is that so? Then tell me where I am wrong. The truth is you can’t as displayed by your insult over substance defense.
They’ve had gay marriage in MA for over 5 years now, I think. The idea that it has somehow “harmed” straight marriage is obviously ludicrous.
The next time someone tries to make that claim, ask them how it is that straight marriage in MA is alive and well.
What’s amusing to me when the gay issue comes up is speculating how many of the gay bashers are closet cases themselves. Right now Dodd is in the lead. 🙂
As far as gays in the military goes — inappropriate sexual conduct is inappropriate sexual conduct, no matter what kind it is. It should be dealt with appropriately. End of story. Doesn’t matter what orientation you are as long as you can keep it in your pants at the appropriate times.
#90-Phydeau-gay bashers must be gay
Is that the best you got? Geez, move along nothing to see here.
Dr. Dodd,
A right is something that the government cannot grant nor take away. It is already the case that homosexuals can fight for their country. That is a right. What is lacking, purely due to outdated religious notions, is their ability to fight for their country in the armed forces. If they are allowed to vote, they should be allowed to fight in the armed forces if they are physical capable. There is already a huge contingent of “don’t ask, don’t tell” homosexuals in the military. The whole policy is silly. If they want to fight for their country, let them.
#89, Dr. Dudd,
First, #87 was directed at Liberty Loser, not you.
BUT, since you seem to think homosexuals are deviant,
Homosexuals already have the same rights as other Americans, it’s the special rights that are in question.
What is it about deviant behavior that leads you to believe some people are more worthy of extra rights not afforded to everyone else?
So what are these special and extra rights anyone is asking for? You don’t make that clear yet it seems a recurring theme.
And by the way, they don’t have all the same rights as heterosexual people. In case you didn’t notice, they are only asking for the same rights accorded other members of society.
And for the “deviant” behavior, you didn’t define what is deviant and I do believe that was answered in my #88 to HMeyers.
#92-Thomas-It is already the case that homosexuals can fight for their country. That is a right.
Not exactly correct. Serving in the military is not a right. Many people that show up at the recruiting office are turned away.
They may not meet physical, mental or other stated requirements, but serving is not a right.