Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pissant

I don’t see a plan of action here by DH. Yes, most of us are mad about it.

The real risk to Homos is that they come out and then DADT goes back into effect.


8 posted on 10/19/2010 12:45:25 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sickoflibs

I don’t care about the ‘real risk’ to homos. Drum them out. BUt Hunter has been out of office for two years, otherwise you can bet he’d be conjuring up legislation to block the district court’s ruling. I’m sure he’ll be working on whatever angle he can glom onto. I imagine his son Duncan D. will be leading the charge in congress, most likely with few allies.


12 posted on 10/19/2010 12:48:48 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: sickoflibs
The real risk to Homos is that they come out and then DADT goes back into effect.

No risk at all - they will be "grandfathered" just as the sodomites in California weren't declared not "married" after Prop 8 passed. These enscounced sodomites will serve as a strong foothold for their next attack.

30 posted on 10/19/2010 2:37:41 PM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: sickoflibs

The real risk to Homos is that they come out and then DADT goes back into effect.

Possibly, but then again, laws can be a play on words as well. The main purpose of Proposition 8 was that it never prevented same-sex marriages from happening. The weddings could still happen, people could still live together in communal relationships, and a great deal wouldn’t stop them. They still could after it passed. The real issue though, is that the tax breaks ordinarily offered based on marital status wouldn’t. The word that describes this situation is SUPERFICIAL.

In DADT, the case is that you can most certainly be gay and serve, but you should keep the behavior to yourself. The same is true for heterosexuals in the sense that if I were a man in the military, It is against the rules for me to practice sexual behavior with female military personnel. DADT was a compromise between Clinton and others, and was more favorable to gays than prior statements. In this case, they’ll say DADT is gone, but either simply place a policy that is textually just like it on the books, but since it is not entitled, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it really doesn’t matter, the move would largely be superficial. On the other hand, this could be like Carper where the judiciary doesn’t bother reading before making the ruling, and unleashes a pile of disaster on the military. I hope that neither situation happens.


38 posted on 10/19/2010 4:11:28 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson