Department of Justice tells Judge Phillips: Keep enforcing DADT and limit ruling only to “Plaintiffs and its members”

September 23, 2010 at 9:23 pm 136 comments

By Eden James

Apologies for not getting this up sooner.

Two weeks ago, federal district court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional, that the plaintiffs (Log Cabin Republicans) are entitled to a permanent injunction against DADT, and that the Justice Department attorneys had until today to object to LCR’s proposed judgment in the case, filed one week ago.

The DoJ submitted their argument on the proposed injunction earlier tonight, before the deadline. Note that this is not an official appeal by the DoJ, but merely an argument on the pending injunction by Judge Phillips and the potential scope of said injunction. An appeal could (will likely, many argue) come later after Phillips issues the injunction.

The Advocate:

The Department of Justice asked a federal judge Thursday to continue enforcing the military’s ban on gay and lesbian service members, despite a ruling earlier this month that struck down “don’t ask, don’t tell” as unconstitutional.

In a 14-page filing, Justice Department attorneys argued that an immediate, permanent injunction against enforcing the law —one supported by Log Cabin Republicans, which successfully challenged DADT in court and has argued for a halt to all discharges of gay service members — would be “untenable.” (A PDF of the government’s brief is here.)

“Because any injunction in this case must be limited to [Log Cabin Republicans] and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of [DADT] fails as a threshold matter,” assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote.

Here’s the filing:

View this document on Scribd

Statement from the White House:

Statement by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Justice Department filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy. The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold. The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal. And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal. The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

Dan Woods from White & Case, the firm representing the Log Cabin Republicans:

“The Justice Department’s objections fail to recognize the implications of the government’s defeat at the trial. It is as if the South announced that it won the Civil War. The objections also fail to mention that the court has previously denied the government’s requests for a stay on three prior occasions and nothing has changed to suggest that a stay is now appropriate; if anything, the Senate vote this week shows that the court was correct in denying the prior requests for a stay. What is most troubling is that the government’s request for a stay ignores the harm that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell causes to current and potential members of our Armed Forces. That is the saddest, most disappointing, and, in light of the President’s position, most hypocritical part of the objections.”

If you’ve seen other links, commentary and reaction to the news tonight, please share all of the above in the comments.

UPDATE: From the comments,
Kathleen Perrin clarifies the process going forward for the government to file its appeal:

The injunction will be detailed in the Judge Phillips’s final judgment, similar to the way Walker’s final judgment enjoined the state of California from enforcing Prop 8.

Once that final judgment is entered, the clock starts ticking on the deadline for the federal government to file its notice of appeal. Per the rules of appellate procedure, the feds will have 60 days to file their notice of appeal (in the Perry case it was only 30 days, but it is 60 days when one of the parties is the federal government).

Entry filed under: DADT trial.

NOM’s strategy of hypocrisy, Part 2: Religious freedom Equality California releases Prop 8 trial-related TV ads warning about Whitman, Cooley

136 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Kathleen  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Just subscribing… and back in the land of reliable internet. Hope to get caught up with everything in the near future. :)

    Reply
    • 2. Ann S.  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm

      Welcome back to the land of reliable internet, Kathleen!

      Reply
      • 3. Kathleen  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:39 pm

        Thanks! And THANK YOU for being on documents duty in my absence.

        Just so everyone knows, Ann S very kindly took over retrieving and uploading the court documents to my Scribd account while I was away.

        Please don’t hesitate to join in thanking her. She has a family and a job, yet stepped in without hesitation when asked. BIG HUGS!!!

        Reply
      • 4. Eden James  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:42 pm

        As Kathleen rightly notes: BIG THANKS to Ann S.!

        That appreciation is deeply felt by many, I know.

        Reply
      • 5. Ann S.  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:43 pm

        Kathleen, you’re very welcome, I was honored to help you out with that. Big hugs back atcha!

        Reply
      • 6. Ann S.  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:43 pm

        Thank you, Eden, for all you do.

        Reply
      • 7. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:46 am

        There’s so much to thank both of you for. I can’t say enough….

        Reply
      • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:33 am

        Thank you Ann!

        And very late to the Scribin’ Party!

        Reply
      • 9. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:37 am

        Thanks, MJFargo and LLB.

        Reply
      • 10. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:12 am

        Thank you, precious little Ann. Your commitment to all this is something your children are going to look back on with pride, some day : )

        Reply
      • 11. Sheryl Carver  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:18 am

        Many thanks to Ann for retrieving the docs, & for her many other contributions!

        And to EVERYONE who has contributed links, insight, & all those things (especially humor) that make this site a MUST visit several times a day.

        What a TERRIFIC bunch of people!

        Reply
      • 12. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:51 am

        Thanks, everyone! I feel that I am getting more thanks than I truly deserve. However, I’ll accept them all, because I am now coming down with a bad cold and all comforts help. I know, it’s only a cold, but the ailment I currently have always seems like the worst.

        Reply
      • 13. Jonathan H  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:13 am

        I really should jump on this bandwagon and thank Kathleen, Ann S., and many others who have taught me so much. It’s humbling and a little embarrassing to realize that back when I found this site I didn’t even know how little I knew about the law.

        From the center of my being, thank you.

        Reply
      • 14. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:02 am

        Ann, the ailment you currently have IS the worst. Hugs and good wishes for a speedy recovery.

        And “you’re welcome” to those who have thanked me. I don’t mean to let these thanks go unacknowledged; it’s just that I’m always a little embarrassed to have attention brought to me this way. (blushing) I do what I do here because I love doing it, it’s the right thing to do, and it’s my very small contribution to making the world a better place for all us. I’m glad to be of service in they way I’m able.

        Reply
      • 15. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:04 am

        Kathleen:

        And we’re glad to have you. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK!

        Reply
    • 16. Eden James  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm

      I know I speak for many Trial Trackers (Trackies?) when I say… we missed you.

      Great to have you back, Kathleen!

      Reply
      • 17. Kathleen  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:41 pm

        Thanks, Eden. I missed all of you, too. :)

        Reply
      • 18. Alan E.  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:19 pm

        Yes. We are Trackies now.

        Reply
      • 19. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:13 am

        I thought it’s “trackerers” :-P

        Welcome back, Kathleen! Thank you for all you do for us, for your precious legal commentaries and!

        Thank you, Ann S., for stepping in and helping us get the information we all so desperately need!

        Thanks to Eden James, other staff writers and guest writers (Kathleen Perrin, Vienna Hagen, others I can’t recall just now).

        Thanks to all the P8TTers / trackerers for being here, commenting, sharing your information and your personal stories, your wonderful thoughts, your witty remarks, your tears of joy and tears of sadness and disappointment.

        And special thanks to our straight allies who have nothing to gain in this fight, who are not affected by gay issues in any way, but who care about equality for all and who come here every day to find out about latest developments in court of law and in court of public opinion!

        I’d better stop because I feel like I just won one of those Oscars and now thanking everybody at the stage (crying included).  Sigh…  Back to reality!

        — ♂KF

        Reply
    • 20. Alan E.  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:18 pm

      Wow late post!

      Reply
    • 21. Rhie  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:40 pm

      Yay reliable internet! Mine was down for four days and ugh.

      Reply
    • 22. JonT  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:50 pm

      Yay, Kathleen’s back!

      Reply
  • 23. Eden James  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    I just added some context to the post, for those not following the case closely:

    —–
    Two weeks ago, federal district court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional, that the plaintiffs (Log Cabin Republicans) are entitled to a permanent injunction against DADT, and that the Justice Department attorneys had until today to object to LCR’s proposed judgment in the case, filed one week ago.

    The DoJ submitted their argument on the proposed injunction earlier tonight, before the deadline.

    Reply
    • 24. Eden James  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm

      More context added:

      Note that this is not an official appeal by the DoJ, but merely an argument on the pending injunction by Judge Phillips and the potential scope of said injunction. An appeal could (will likely, many argue) come later after Phillips issues the injunction.

      Reply
      • 25. Kathleen  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:00 pm

        The injunction will be detailed in the Judge Phillips’s final judgment, similar to the way Walker’s final judgment enjoined the state of California from enforcing Prop 8.

        Once that final judgment is entered, the clock starts ticking on the deadline for the federal government to file its notice of appeal. Per the rules of appellate procedure, the feds will have 60 days to file their notice of appeal (in the Perry case it was only 30 days, but it is 60 days when one of the parties is the federal government).

        Reply
  • 26. Kevin S.  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Is there any reason to believe another word Obama says about his alleged “support” for LGBT rights? The only time he’s actively done anything in the arena, it’s been to oppose the rights he promised to fight for. This isn’t about any kind of political deal-making (which made no sense in the first place – in order to end DADT, we must continue enforcing DADT? As a certain writer of Parks and Recreation might say, fuck the heck?); the court gave him a clear excuse to cease enforcement, and he’s spat in its face.

    Reply
    • 27. Fulton  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:43 am

      I no longer know where Prez Obama stands on LGBTQ rights anymore, but wasn’t the request filed from the Dept of Justice and not the White House?

      Reply
      • 28. anonygrl  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:50 am

        Yes, the DOJ file the request, since they are the lawyers in this, but the White House directed its content.

        Reply
      • 29. Mouse  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:35 am

        The question isn’t whether Obama filed himself. It’s what is he doing? He’s not doing anything visibly supportive. Why doesn’t he speak up and say “This law, which I have vowed to repeal, has been declared unconstitutional. In light of that, we cannot, in good conscience, continue to enforce it.”

        And all of the anti-Americans who voted against repealing a law that is unconstitutional should be advertised as the enemies to America and the constitution that they have chosen to be.

        Reply
      • 30. Anonygrl  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:56 am

        Honestly, the reason he is not doing what we would hope he would do is that he is a politician, and he CANNOT. Everyone here wishes that he could just wave his magic pen and make it all right, but we all know the truth is that he has to do things slowly, and in the right order, or he immediately alienates a much larger part of the country than just us, and he can’t afford to do that before elections, lest he lose all power to accomplish ANYTHING after the elections.

        It sucks, and seems completely wrong, but it is the way the game is played… and at that level, you have to play the game. And we have to support the person who at least SAYS he is on our side, even if he seems to be slow about it, over others who we KNOW are not.

        Reply
      • 31. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:41 am

        Anonygirl, I agree with that. Do we really want our Presidents to be suspending enforcement of laws they don’t like? Think about what a President you don’t like can do with that power.

        Not that it doesn’t already happen in other ways — too few meat inspectors, too few oil rig inspectors, etc.

        But it’s not a good way to govern.

        Reply
      • 32. Kevin S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:52 am

        Really? There is absolutely nothing stopping him from accepting Phillips’ ruling, just like Brown and Arnie accepted Walker’s ruling. He (and his DOJ) can’t appeal that ruling and then tell me he’s committed to ending DADT.

        Reply
      • 33. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:56 am

        Do we know yet if the appeal is being filed? I don’t think we do.

        Reply
      • 34. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:21 am

        I’m not too upset at the President. There’s an election coming up, and I certainly don’t want to see another party ener the White House for the next four years. It was AMAZING that Clinton’s first order of business in his first term was to try to do away with the ridiculous gays-in-the-military ban….but I can’t think of another president that would full-steam-ahead with a gay equality issue in their first term. Yes, it’s a bummer….but I constantly have to remind myself that we live in the real world, that the public isn’t that smart (or fair minded), and that it’s wise to balance out the big picture Re: what repercussions can be as change moves forward.

        I’m not so high on politicians, in general. Who grows up thinking they want to rule the world? I said in a speech once that I’m sure Abraham Lincoln was a nice person, but even he was probably a NICER person before he entered politics.

        Reply
      • 35. Sheryl Carver  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:31 am

        I do realize Obama has limits on his powers, but he CAN:
        – suspend all discharges pending resolution (either legislative or judicial)
        – direct the DOJ to NOT appeal (just like Gov & AG on P8)

        As for alienating voters right before elections, with regard to Marriage Equality, that might be a legitimate concern, but polls show overwhelming support for abolishing DADT. So I’m not buying any election concerns.

        I think the choices are:
        – he really doesn’t want or care about equal rights for LGBTs
        – he’s using LGBT issues for backroom deal-making (I won’t move on repealing DADT if you …)
        – he has no guts &/or real leadership skills
        – all or some combination of the above

        We are unfortunately more & more stuck with choosing the lesser of 2 evils, the higher up the political chain we go. I believe that until we have “Instant Runoff” / “Ranked Voting” for ALL political positions, we’ll be at the mercy of the GOP & our “fake friends” the Dems.

        Reply
      • 36. Sheryl Carver  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:54 am

        For those of us old enough to remember “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”, this clip does a great job of expressing my current opinion of Obama et al:

        Reply
      • 37. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:00 pm

        Ann S —

        Actually the too few regulators problem is a function of Congress gutting payment to agencies and passing law limiting their authority.

        I sometimes wonder if the fierce opposition to more regulation is that people assume the agencies have more power than they do. I think so, because when I start getting specific they agree with all that I am saying. Someone might cry no more regulation but will heartily agree that the FDA needs the ability to force a company to recall a bad product – an ability they currently do not have, so that would be a new regulation.

        Reply
      • 38. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:34 pm

        Rhie, it can be what you say, and it can also be the executive not spending the money that Congress has allotted (I know it sounds unlikely, but it has happened, and not all that long ago), or not appointing people.

        Reply
  • 39. Ronnie  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Does DOJ…now stand for….Department of Jacknuts?……Just repeal the god- damn-law…& stop pandering to some homophobic (another name for a cat starting w/a “P” & ending w/a “Y”)’s incapacity to do their f@#king jobs because of their delicate little nature of being uncomfortable of Jan being in a relationship w/Ricky (used gender neutral names..you love it don’t you?) back in the States…& stop wasting our tax money on this bull-shite …..UGGGG…..REFUND!!!!…REFUND!!!!….I WANT A REFUND!!!!!….. X( …..Ronnie

    Reply
    • 40. Kevin S.  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm

      The thing is, everything I’ve heard is that majority of people in the military aren’t homophobic pussies – it’s the vocal minority, yet again (and those homophobes who dishonor our service men and women by projecting their insecurities onto them).

      Reply
      • 41. Ronnie  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:50 pm

        Oh I know…that’s what I meant….& I just needed to get out that little yell..my cousin is a retired Marine & he hates DADT & the fact that LGBT people can’t serve openly…<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 42. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:59 am

        I appeal to my fellow servicemembers (as an ex soldier) who can’t stand the idea of knowing someone you serve with is not “straight”: GROW UP!!! This isn’t high school, this isn’t bible study, this isn’t the dark ages. This is modern America. GROW UP!!!

        I appeal to the DOJ, Congress, and Obama: GROW UP!!! This isn’t about your damn approval ratings. This is PEOPLE’S LIVES! What’s more important, the security of a nation, or the insecurity of a few of its “defenders”*? GROW UP!!!

        *”Defenders” being in quotes because I sincerely question the right of anyone to claim that title who won’t defend everybody’s rights.

        Reply
    • 43. Alyson  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:07 am

      From those of us proud to have a p$&&y let’s not get all mysogynist on their homophobic asses. And I do agree – don’t think bush would lift a finger for a law he claimed to disagree with. The courts are laying these opportunities in obamas lap and he’s making effort at everystep to be sure he slows us down. You’d think he’d at least offer an explanation. Not total silence!

      Reply
      • 44. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:08 am

        I think this is probably all political. Mid-term elections coming up, approval ratings down. And this election is probably going to be as messy as the last decade of elections has been.

        Reply
  • 45. AndrewPDX  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Why do I get the feeling that I’m standing in a row with seven others… on squares of alternating colors… with a strange group of eight behind me… I mean, there’s a frickin’ castle over in the corner, and what’s up with the dude on the horse?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

    Reply
    • 46. Richard W. Fitch  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:55 pm

      Andrew, one of my top ten all-time favorite pieces of pop music. Seems to be my week for chess. Last nite watched the Tim Burton “Alice In Wonderland”. But when will all the Queens finally wipe all the Bishops off the board?

      Reply
    • 47. Joel  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      Love that song!

      Remember Andrew, even a pawn can bring down a king and win the game.

      Reply
    • 48. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:05 am

      As my eyes slid past that video title, I thought it said One Night in Bjork.

      ! ! !

      Reply
      • 49. Jonathan H  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:17 am

        It’d be a far weirder video in that case!

        I tried to start the vid and got this message: “This video contains content from UMG. It is restricted from playback on certain sites.”

        Doesn’t the wording imply that P8TT has been specifically excluded here? Trivial, but interesting.

        Reply
  • 50. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    We have really got to ramp up pour efforts for equality.

    Reply
  • 51. Jonathan H  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    There’s more of that “only applies to the plaintiffs” stuff. When I saw that claimed in regards to Prop8 I assumed it was just a dodge, a sort of wild, hand-waving diversion to muddy the waters and keep people uncertain. But here’s the Justice Department saying the same thing, and I don’t get it.

    Maybe one of you lawyerly types can explain this to me, if a law is found to be unconstitutional, why in the world would it still be applied to everyone who didn’t sue over it? I know that in practice peoples rights are often dependent on their willingness to stand up and fight for them, but this is treating that as a legal theory.

    Does the constitution only apply if we sue? Surely just because someone was a party to the lawsuit their rights aren’t any more or less valid than those who weren’t. Is it not in the spirit of the constitution that rights are not granted or permitted by any authority, but assumed to exist by default? How can one justify applying an unjust law, one that is known to be unjust?

    I would really appreciate it if someone could explain that to me.

    Reply
    • 52. Richard W. Fitch  |  September 23, 2010 at 9:57 pm

      Jonathan, I concur with your line of argument. {{ by any chance do you live in DC??}}

      Reply
      • 53. Jonathan H  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:05 pm

        Nope, Fresno, California here.

        And Richard it really is a serious question, although reading it again it does look more like an argument. *shrug* I wanted to make it very clear why I’m having trouble understanding this.

        Reply
  • 54. Jen  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Sooo, if I join the log cabin republicans, I can be except from DADT?

    Reply
    • 55. allen  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:29 pm

      I was wondering what “Plaintiffs and their Members” meant.

      I just assumed teh DOJ was inventing a new PC word for gay partners.

      Reply
      • 56. Kathleen  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:32 pm

        I understood what they meant, but must admit it conjured up images of plaintiffs’ body parts.

        Reply
      • 57. Dave P.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:39 am

        Yeah well I got a member right here for ya, DOJ. Fuhgeddaboudit!

        Reply
    • 58. Jonathan H  |  September 23, 2010 at 10:56 pm

      As it turns out, no.

      Page 5, line 26:
      “And because defendants do not know the names of LCR’s bona fide members, party-specific relief is impossible to fashion here. ”

      So it only applies to Log Cabin Republicans, but they don’t get any help either because we don’t know who they are. Because if we had, we’d have fired them for being gay.

      Reply
      • 59. Anonygrl  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:07 am

        Because if we had, we’d have fired them for being gay.

        Wow. Well said!

        Reply
    • 60. Sheryl Carver  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:36 am

      Their brief also specifically mentions CURRENT members of LCR. Otherwise, all LGBT soldiers could join the LCR & avoid DADT (much better than getting kicked out.)

      Reply
  • 61. Jonathan H  |  September 23, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    Ok, out of a sort of macabre curiosity (possibly some masochism) I skimmed through the document and found this: (page 2)

    “Throughout the six years of litigation, plaintiff has only ever purported to assert the rights of its own members. ”

    And this:

    “The Supreme Court has made clear that, absent a recognized exception, “litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” ”

    Which seems to be addressing my question. But I don’t buy it. I mean, yes I’d expect a case to be about a specific group and circumstance, but once the constitution gets involved the scope broadens.

    We live under rule of law in this nation, and the constitution is the highest law, the one that applies to the entire United States. Once a law is found to be violating it, that case now applies to everyone, just as the constitution applies to everyone.

    I’m also puzzled by the claim that ending DADT is untenable. How hard is it to not fire people? What are they really saying here? I’m imagining a cartoon general, the kind that’s shaped like a brick with no visible eyes that’s constantly chomping on a huge cigar, shouting “We can’t expect our officers, who are well-trained professionals, to suppress their fear, rage and panic at learning that they work with gay homo-fags!”

    Reply
    • 62. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:16 am

      I go that too. It’s as thought they want to claim that if the injunction is filed, that the DoD won’t be able to expel LGBTs for any reason, and that’s just not true.

      If ANY servicemember does something that effects military readiness or unit cohesion, the UCMJ already covers this, and the servicemember can be court-martialed and expelled.

      This type of argument is called “Red Herring.”

      Reply
      • 63. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:24 am

        As I’ve said before, IANAL, but I AM a philosopher and computer scientist. Logoc is my life’s blood (next to coffee).

        As we should know, logic is a set of rules by which arguments can be verified. But there are ways to fiddle with arguments to make them SOUND valid, but when analized, that validity falls apart. (Also note, logic only applies to DEDUCTIVE reasoning, INDUCTIVE reasoning has it’s own rules.)

        So I’d like to share a resource for our less-logically-trained readers. You can get a primer on logical fallacies at:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

        and a google search can find more. I suggest checking them out. It’ll make tearing apart their arguments that much easier.

        Reply
      • 64. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:25 am

        Logic may be my life’s blood, but apparently spelling is not…

        Sorry for the typos.

        Reply
      • 65. Jonathan H  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:49 am

        “Logic may be my life’s blood, but apparently spelling is not…”

        It’s the coffee. Either too much or not enough.

        As long as we’re drifting off topic, I heard a story about logical fallacies. It may have even actually happened!

        A 5th grade teacher printed out a list of fallacies for her students to take home. They were to note fallacies used in advertising and get a sample for class discussion. Most of the kids brought back more examples than the assignment called for, generally a good sign in teaching, and they talked about the ways fallacious claims or arguments can mislead.

        Later that day, an angry teacher stormed into the classroom demanding to know why her students were question her lessons. The next day the phone calls from parents started coming in.

        She was told not to teach the subject anymore.

        Reply
      • 66. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:54 am

        And here are the “proofs” most often submitted by the anit-equality forces
        http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/math-jokes-mathematical-proofs.html

        Reply
      • 67. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:56 am

        OMG, Kathleen; now we know where the proponents have been getting their arguments!

        Reply
      • 68. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:15 am

        Kathleen: These are great! Thanks for the laugh….

        Reminds me of a math joke (please hold groaning to the end :> ):

        Proof That Girls Are Evil

        girls= time x money

        time = money

        ergo: girls = money ^ 2

        money = root(evil)

        ergo: girls = root(evil) ^ 2

        Reduce:

        girls = evil

        QED

        (You may groan now)

        Reply
      • 69. AndrewPDX  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        @ elliom …

        math jokes… gotta love ’em…

        however, there’s a fly in your ointment on that proof:

        Money Root(Evil), but rather: Love(Money) = Root(All Evil)

        hm… then loving girls is evil? I doubt that, as the lesbians I know are really nice.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 70. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:07 pm

        Andrew:

        *Snarkily*

        How DARE you bring up the laws of mathematics and the implication that the rules of logic trump my RIGHT to define math and logic as I wish! You’re such a math-logic bigot, and you’re picking on me. I’m going to start a group to amend the constitution to band the marriage of logic and math in arguments because it’s unholy and immoral!

        Of course, I do this only because I love you so much.

        :>

        Reply
      • 71. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:18 pm

        You’re both imposing your math on me. I deserve the right to vote on this matter!

        Reply
      • 72. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:27 pm

        Let the people vote! Gravity is just a theory, why are we teaching it in schools?? We should teach all alternative theories and let children decide for themselves!

        Oops, am I getting my rants mixed up?

        Reply
      • 73. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm

        I don’t believe in math, so none of you can either.

        Reply
      • 74. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        KATE’S A M-ATHIEST…..GET HER!!!!

        Reply
      • 75. Jonathan H  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        Ann S., I just want it on record that I am not opposed to the theory of gravity, but only the practice thereof. Gravitational acts threaten us all, you know!

        Reply
      • 76. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

        I can show many injuries “in fact” that my body has suffered as a result of 60 years of gravity. Think I can sue gravity in federal court?

        Reply
      • 77. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        Gravatational attractions are un-natural and should be treated and cured….please pray with me

        Reply
      • 78. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:38 pm

        Somewhere there is a hilariously funny website spoofing the idea that gravity is “just a theory”, and chronicles the activities of a (fictitious, do I need to say this?) group opposed to the theory and claiming that Newton was a crackpot. I’ll try to find it again when I am not in the middle of a work crunch.

        Someone actually presented it on a discussion board as a serious site, and was roundly mocked for it. Her defense was that she “never was that good at science”. Another friend of hers had told her it was a serious site (as a joke), and she had fallen for it.

        Reply
      • 79. AndrewPDX  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:18 pm

        The laws of gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love.
        — Albert Einstein

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 80. fiona64  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm

        Let nothing surprise you:

        First Annual Conference on Geocentrism

        They are serious.

        I want to come upside every single one of their heads with Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 81. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        I have to find it somewhere, but there is some benefit to geocentrism, but only when you are standing on Earth and trying to point to a particular object in the sky. There are many levels of centrism that are beneficial in certain aspects, but only in those aspects and points of view.

        Reply
      • 82. Jonathan H  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:34 pm

        Alan E. Yes, it’s a coordinate system that imagines the sky is a hollow globe all around us, but otherwise works just like Latitude & Longitude on Earth.

        I’m still not convinced that the geocentrist conference is serious.

        Speaking of the sky, you should really go outside tonight and look at the Moon, and at Jupiter south of the Moon.
        Take a moment to enjoy that beauty, and appreciate that there are still wonders unimagined.

        Reply
      • 83. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:36 pm

        I was looking at Jupiter in my telescope last night =)

        Reply
  • 84. James UK  |  September 23, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    The DOJ’s main argument is that the case was brought on behalf of LCR’s members only and should apply only to them.

    However, this would not give complete relief.

    Judge Phillips found DADT unconsitutional because it improperly infringed the plaintiffs first and fifth amendment rights. Those rights would continue to be infringed without a worldwide injunction. Without such an injunction, LCR members in the military, whether generally or in particular John Doe, cannot be protected in relation to those first and fifth amendment rights.

    Imagine the injuction is limited only to John Doe or to LCR members as of the date of the first amended complaint. They could say that they were gay in California. But they could not say so elsewhere. Moreover, imagine John Doe knows other gay servicemembers not stationed in California. He would not be able to communicate openly with them, for fear that they would be caught by DADT outside California, or that for the purpose of an investigation/witch hunt of gay servicemembers outside California, that he could be transferred out of California and required to name names. Not to mention the possibility (read likelihood) of immediate transfer of Doe/LCR members out of California with the sole aim of defeating the judgement and keeping DADT intact

    This assumes that the injunction would have to apply solely to existing LCR members.

    If not, then the absurd situation would be that gay republicans could serve openly, but not gay democrats.

    Or funnier still, LCR could at a stroke extend honorary membership to every member of the US military worldwide.

    A final worldwide injunction, stayed for 60 days, the deadline for appeal to the 9th Circuit, would put the DOJ and the WH in an exquisitely difficult position politically.

    Of course the DOJ has not set out a version of a limited injunction that it says should apply and the DOJ is in a similarly embarrasing position to the Prop 8 proponents in Perry, in that it fails to address the fact of the trial itself and the findings of fact and conclusions of law applied.

    “But we’re the government!” isn’t much different from “but it’s traditional!”

    Reply
    • 85. draNgNon  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:34 am

      A final worldwide injunction, stayed for 60 days, the deadline for appeal to the 9th Circuit, would put the DOJ and the WH in an exquisitely difficult position politically.

      depends on when the judgement was entered. the military’s report on rolling back DADT is due 1st of December. the Defense appropriations bill really had better be passed by then or all those soldiers in Afghanistan are gonna be there without pay.

      I am assuming eventually it will be passed by lame-duck Congress with an enforcement delay beyond the military report. I will not be surprised if that times pretty perfectly with 60 days after the final judgement in this case is entered. 60 days would be a week from Saturday.

      Reply
      • 86. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:06 am

        After what we saw, I wonder if a lame-duck congress will fare any better. If the pugs could stall this long, perhaps they will try to stall till next year when they can kill the repeal altogether by passing an emergency bill with far more garbage in it and twice the funds (to compensate for the wretched actions of Democrats that didn’t want to fund the military.)

        The C Street exposure by Maddow really shakes me up. And I can’t help but to feel that Susan Collins (and the entire party) is being harshly bullied to conform to the greater repugnant policy. Even Democrats were more willing to compromise in every way. I realize that there is a certain amount of political double talk but I don’t recall ever seeing this level of coordinated duplicity. Maddow really tears the pugs apart with her analysis of why the DAB did not get the cloture vote.

        I can only defer to experience and wisdom. Humans have one universal desire in common, we ALL want to be happy. No matter the views of any individual or group of individuals, in the end the pursuit of happiness wins out. Only those in fear who are unhappy refuse to extend happiness to others. But fear is taxing on the spirit and eventually wears a person out. Happiness (especially from a sociological and evolutionary perspective) eventually overcomes all fear.

        Hope is there,
        Felyx

        Reply
      • 87. Don in Texas  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:24 am

        Congress could pass a continuing resolution to fund the Defense Department after October 1st (beginning of the government’s fiscal year) at current levels without passing the National Defense Appropriations Act.

        Reply
  • 88. BK  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:17 am

    >.<

    *sigh*

    Contentment will come when the children on homophobes laugh at their parents.

    Reply
  • 89. ParisLV  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:00 am

    I know it’s tough, I haven’t experienced it myself, but I have heard stories from friends about the backlash of coming out… HOWEVER, I still believe all these inequalities would go away if all LGBT would come out of the closet… At the end, everybody has a CHOICE, easy or not, hard or impossible, it’s still a CHOICE you make…

    Reply
    • 90. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:15 am

      It is a choice and one that’s individual to each person. I cannot abide “keeping my light under a bushel,” but I do respect that my family was more accepting than many. i grew up in the arts and experienced a great deal more tolerance than my partner who is a CPA. Both of us at times in our lives were employed by the Federal Government. I was “I dare you to make an issue of this” and my partner chose a different path by hiding.

      For many it’s okay if you just don’t talk about it, but it’s foolish to believe that no one knows. It’s part of why DADT is so insidious. It reenforces the idea that if you just don’t say you’re queer…then no one has to think about it. But that only sets up a situtation where people think about it all the time. “Don’t…no, don’t….just don’t…say it.” It’s exhausting and damaging. And if you can lose you’re career over it, then of course it’s less a choice for many than you say.

      Reply
    • 91. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:34 am

      The other thing about officially coming out is, It can effect people financially. And enlightened as we all want to be, when money is on the line, most people stop and consider a decision very, very carefully. When people are “disowned” by their family, that puts inheritence at risk. There’s a good number of people who depend on those in their scheme of life. It’s not our place to say they need to be put out in the streets, or lose a financial inheritence if it’s important to them.

      I never blamed Jodie Foster for not coming out in her youth. She was a star who played romantic leads, and knew her million dollar paychecks might dry up were she widely known to be lesbian. (Her choice of roles would have shrunk, too.)

      How someone protects their financial interests is up to them, and I don’t think it’s my place to tell someone “You need to give up your income for the Greater Good.” If they do, GREAT. But I can’t criticize them for not jumping at that choice.

      Reply
      • 92. Bob  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:15 am

        protecting financial interests is where we become equal with the politicians who continue to enforce DADT.

        in this case we are no different we are asking the politicians to give up their financial interests for the sake of the constitution, we’re expecting our commander and chief , to forgo his own interests and “do the right thing” by doing that he may loose next round of elections.

        It is a very rare case where you find true leaders, and usually in the case of Presidents, it’s decades between finding the ones that are leaders and give up their own interests for the benefit of the country.

        In Obama’s run up to election, I swore I was seeing that quality of leader, he is proving otherwise. Unless he is so brilliant he is working this in ways we can not precently see.
        He worked deligently on health care, cause that had affected him personally, like he was determined to do right by his mother. good for him. Now how long would it take for one of his daughters to come out, then he’d have a personal stake in this cause too that would make it worth fighting for. Hope that’s not what it takes.

        Enough about them, and back to us, it’s true many people give up their rights for financial reasons, and personal gain, that’s a choice they make, but they must also then share equally in the blame.

        The truth is and we must not kid ourselves here, people have put a price on equality, and are buying the package, selling their very souls , and value as humans for the sake of some other gain. True we can’t judge, but we can tell the truth about it, Some people come to this realization sooner than others, and when they do make the connection the real heroes choose their soul over benefits.

        I’m positive there are a lot of service men women who are under extreme pressure right now, and doing some excruciating painfull soul searching, hopefully moreso than President Obama, or members of congess.

        To them I say, you have a leader his name is Choi.

        Reply
    • 93. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:08 am

      carpool cookie, I couldn’t agree more. As much as I think it is an advantage for the greater good for people to be out, it is a choice every person must make for her/himself. Only the individual knows what s/he might risk in being open and what level of risk s/he is comfortable taking on.

      The only situation where I feel differently about this is when an individual has been actively and publicly anti-equality, or (as in the case of George Rekers) is being used as an “expert” to deny rights to glbt people. IMO, those people lost their right to privacy in this matter when they decided to enter the public fight for civil rights on the wrong side of the issue. Then the public interest weighs in favor of exposing their hypocrisy.

      Reply
      • 94. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:00 am

        Yes. Exactly. That is where they cross the line, as they’ve thrown their hat in the ring and opened a discussion.

        Reply
      • 95. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:41 pm

        I think it can be more than “finances” that lead to people hiding in the closet. We’re bombarded with how terrible GLB&T people are and in some environments, that’s all you hear. Would you condemn someone who commits suicide rather than be outted? It’s up to us to provide an environment so that people can be safe. While there is quite a bit of enlightenment around, in many quarters you can still risk your life if you come out.

        There’s a wonderful documentary just re-released on Turner called “Word is Out.” It’s testimony from gay and lesbian people in 1978. These are folks who bridged the gap between the 1950’s and the Liberation Movement. And the courage on exhibit is extraordinary. All of us can’t be extraordinary.

        In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need to have the discussion. But NOM is an example of how imperfect we call still are.

        Reply
  • 97. BubbaN  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Repeal of DADT is “untenable” if you’re a politician in an election season. I have no doubt Obama wants it repealed, as do may others. No one wants to take responsibility for it so they let the courts handle it. Of course they have to at least make an appearance at the appeal table, otherwise they would have “let it happen”. But as noted above, the arguments against the ruling are flimsy, but I doubt anyone who actually wants DADT has the intellectual capacity to notice.

    Reply
  • 98. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Reminding myself and anyone else who’s listening.

    The House and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted for DADT. A majority in the Senate (57) voted for cloture. THE GOP FILIBUSTERED. I cannot see how Obama and the Democrats have let anyone down. Can anyone here imagine an election where the Democrats (the only party making any promises) would hold the presidency, the House and 62 senate seats (to allow for the odd person to cross the aisle)?

    And subscribing.

    Reply
    • 99. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:21 am

      I really wish someone (extremely knowledgeable) would do an analysis as to why the Republicans are winning seats. I am having a hard time believing that there are that many people who continue to vote for a party that is not actually helping them. With all the intra-party bullying going on, I am wondering if the elections are not being tampered with in some way.
      (The call to Pulpit Politics article was an eye-opener!!)

      Felyx

      Reply
      • 100. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:30 am

        Based on what I’ve seen/hear…..anger and ignorance.

        Reply
      • 101. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        My amateur political theory is this:

        Considering everything, they actually aren’t winning that many seats.

        In a midterm year, the party in power loses seats. That’s almost always a given. However, from the polls, the Republicans aren’t even going to pick up a majority in either the House or the Senate. With Christine O’Donnell running, the odds are now even for the Senate.

        In a recession, the party in power loses seats whether or not they caused it. People are impatient, and don’t realize that it took us since Reagan to head into this miss and will take at least as long to fix it.

        All they see is that they haven’t had a job in a year, their kids had to drop out of college or have huge loans to repay. They hear the statistics about poverty and unemployment, and they really are grim. They want to see action NOW and can’t understand and don’t care that this may not be reasonable or even possible.

        In general, during hard times, people entrench further in their views. A compromise – like the health bill – that would have been seen as a victory in a better time is now seen as pandering and incomplete and generally a loss. People want to see concrete yes and no, up and down. Republicans are providing that. They have a strong NO message. That conviction, if not the viewpoint, is very appealing right now.

        There is also the theory of “mommy” and “daddy” in politics. Forgive the out-dated gender roles here, but that’s what the theory hinges on. The idea is that people want a “daddy” during times of crisis to sort everything out and take away the bad guys. Republicans have positioned themselves as just that person – and the Democrats as the root of all evil.

        This brings me to the third point: messaging. Democrats are much more willing to, if not entirely eat their own, publicly criticize and allow public criticism of their own people. Republicans are forced to apologize and back candidates they previously found repugnant. See Karl Rove for the most recent example.

        This means Republicans are far more organized in their message. They keep hammering the same things, taking credit for Democrat ideas, etc. People can tell you what Republicans want and stand for. They generally can’t name one specific thing Democrats have done.

        I believe this to be a message problem rather any reflection on reality.

        There is also the added problem that Democrats are generally spineless. They won’t take a pro-active, offensive stance. They keep believing that facts will convince more than emotion. This is patently untrue. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here because Prop 8 would have failed dismally.

        All those together…and it’s a miracle Republicans aren’t leading by 12 in every race.

        Reply
    • 102. Hanou  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:28 am

      They’ve let us down by not making this a big issue. They’ve let us down by negotiating away LGBT rights with the promise of eventually getting them back, and then failing to get them back. They’ve let us down by being silent on their plans regarding the court case. They’ve let us down by letting the Republicans set the terms of the debate, and get away with obstructing an issue for which a massive majority of Americans is actually on our side.

      That’s how they’ve let us down.

      Reply
      • 103. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:37 am

        When has it ever been any different? This is nothing new. There really are few alternative options, however. Who would you rather see in the White House next term, specifically, and how would you get them there?

        Reply
  • 104. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:00 am

    This is all about an agenda and it’s not the “gay agenda.” I’ve encouraged people to “be patient” until after the midterms, but that was before we had a ruling by the Federal Courts that DADT was unconstitutional and that bans on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. There’s little to support the administration now. If the Governor of California can take the heat, it really makes me lose respect that the President can’t.

    Both rulings on DADT and Prop 8 spelled it out in the clearest language possible. This is discrimination. It’s wrong. It should stop. But we have, primarily, the Roman Caltholic church (and haven’t we seen what they’re all about when it comes to sex?) pulling some heavy chains around a lot of influential people and the Mormon Church scaring everyone about “the children.” It’s offensive to this Nation and all that it stands for and unless the President steps forward and provides leadership very soon, I’ll oppose his reelection.

    It’s that simple.

    Reply
    • 105. Anonygrl  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:24 am

      Oppose his reelection in favor of who? A more conservative Democrat who is trying to win Republicans over and would veto a repeal of DADT? A Republican who would work to limit our rights across the boards to appease the religious right and the Tea Partiers? A more liberal Democrat who doesn’t stand a chance of winning, and will split the Democratic vote, leading to that conservative Republican getting in anyway?

      I think President Obama has done a great deal of good, fighting an uphill battle the entire way. The idea that I might actually be able to afford health insurance in a couple of years is quite exciting to me, as it has been many years since I have had any. Knowing that someone is actually trying to solve the economic problems in a way that does not entirely involve giving all my money to billionaires in the hopes that they will spend some of it so that I can get it back, also good. The fact that he expresses concern and support for other issues that he is working on, however slowly, issues that I am interested in, I’ll take it.

      Yes. I, too, would like it all solved yesterday, and wish we were living in The United States of Utopia. Realistically, I know the best we can do is keep fighting for it as hard as we can, and not drive ourselves crazy when it takes longer than we like.

      Reply
      • 106. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:17 am

        Whatever the alternatives, I voted and campaigned for a President who, I believed, spoke truth to power. As I said I understood his predicament in championing (I’m solely speaking of the rights–yes, the rights–of) GLBT people.

        He cannot win the hearts and minds of the raging right. If nothing has shown that is President Obama’s first two years in office. So who is he pandering to? They will not support him no matter what. And absent the courage to stand up and say what he believes is right, I have to conclude that he thinks we ARE second class citizens.

        I’m reminded of LBJ’s bitter ordeal with the Vietnam war. He was morally wrong and I opposed him even though the alternatives were no better.

        There’s only a limit that I can extend to politicians in their need to compromise. The Clintons (Bill as President and Hillary as a candidate) skirted very close in their support of the invasion of Iraq. There was a point that both had which I understood. Morally, I’m not sure the President has a point.

        He has been handed very sane and supported arguments by the courts for what he said he believed. His silence is inexcusable. At this point, we might as well have Mitt Romney in the Whitehouse because after four years of that perhaps we’d be able to elect a President who could smash the tactics of the Right. Now, we have a lame duck President who isn’t a lame duck.

        Reply
      • 107. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:40 am

        “Oppose his reelection in favor of who? A more conservative Democrat who is trying to win Republicans over and would veto a repeal of DADT? A Republican who would work to limit our rights across the boards to appease the religious right and the Tea Partiers? A more liberal Democrat who doesn’t stand a chance of winning, and will split the Democratic vote, leading to that conservative Republican getting in anyway?”

        Exactly. We do live in the real world, after all. With politics, it’s often the lesser of two evils. It’s more about damage control than really quick, firm advancement, because there’s no way to make everyone happy.

        Reply
  • 108. Ozymandias71  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:09 am

    *sigh* Yet another example of tortured pretzel-logic when applied to us LGBT folks…

    According to the DOJ complaint, the injunction should only apply to the LCR and its’ members…

    …but we can’t *know* the LCR members who are Gay/Lesbian and serving in the military because if we did, we’d toss them out under DADT…

    Seriously? *winces from the sudden headache*

    Love and plenty of headache pills,

    Ozy

    Reply
  • 109. Hank (NYC)  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:27 am

    And this from the Harvard President:

    “Harvard had expelled ROTC from campus in 1969, amid protests against the Vietnam War,” reported the Globe. “Today, Faust said, there is only one reason ROTC is barred from campus: The issue is ‘entirely linked to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ ’ She said Harvard bars discrimination by all undergraduate groups.”

    Nice they keep that up and public.

    Reply
    • 110. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:42 am

      I’m proud of Harvard, and my family’s alumni chair.

      Reply
      • 111. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:43 am

        And on a gayer note….they have a gorgeous campus, architecturally speaking. Love the ivy!

        Reply
      • 112. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:49 pm

        I have a family connection there too, Cookie–I’m a Dunster. :)

        Reply
  • 113. Freddy  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:33 am

    So I have officially lost all hope in our government, the democrats have had several chances to help the LGBT community in the last almost two years and all we have gotten so far is a bunch of broken promises, I am starting to believe that republicans are the only ones we can trust, they say they hate us and we can actually believe them, we don’t have to wonder if we can trust them, on the other hand, the dems have been making empty promises since Clinton ( I know there were other dems before that but I did not pay attention to politics prior to 1980) I know McPain is a total moron but at least I would never have gotten my hopes up with him in office and as a community, we are used to having no rights and being repressed. I could go on but I am starting to feel sick and feel if I did, I would need to visit the porcelain god. Is it to late to repeal obama?

    subbing

    Freddy

    Reply
  • 114. Ed  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Good Mornin from Texas. I’ve been wanting to ask this but have been afraid of the mob attacks that might follow :)
    I was a DIE HARD!! and I mean HARD! Hillary supporter. In the end I did vote for Obama. I am not convinced that Hillary would have been any better to the LGBT community, but I would love to hear your thoughts. I think Obama is in very serious trouble for 2012. He has so many people really angry with him and his early net roots supporters are among the most angry. As I see it, our only hope is that Tea Baggers and Sarah Palin and her ilk win control of the Republican party…. then maybe the intelligent side of the Repubs might stay home or even vote for Obama. Or any chance someone strong would take Obama on in the primary? I know this is way off subject, but hey it’s friday…. let’s chat

    Reply
    • 115. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:30 am

      I’m much more interested in pressing our current President in fullfilling his agenda over the next two years. However things stand then is going to be a great big guess. I actually think Hillary Clinton (who I actually adore) would have had a harder time. President Obama was an “unknown” to the Right, and while they wound up treating him and demonizing him the same way they’d already succeeded in doing to Hillary Clinton, I believed he had a chance. I think he’s blown it, and if he said it was out of disgust for how he’s been treated, I wouldn’t blame him one bit. But he needs to speak out, represent what both sides have to say and make a decision on which way to proceed. It’s the latter he’s failed at doing.

      Reply
      • 116. James UK  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:56 am

        It’s conjecture, but the impression I have of the difference between Hillary and Barry, is that Hillary isn’t afraid of power, or of wielding it and Barry is.

        Reply
      • 117. James UK  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:58 am

        But , re-litigating the 2008 campaign takes us all down a blind alley.

        Reply
  • 118. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Everyone NOM has indeed come out as the ones running the Facebook page “Protect Marriage:One Man One Woman” whose members support, condone, & advocate murder & violence towards LGBT people on a daily basis….NOM has added the website & their twitter account to the pages information……They have lied to the press, the government, & the public….

    Brian Brown & NOM are officially & publicly running a hate page that promotes murder & violence towards LGBT people…as well as overthrowing the Federal Government & demanding ALL Americans be forced to be their version of “Christian”

    They need to be prosecuted to full extent…report them to the FBI & Homeland Security……they are a terrorist group & they are destroying America…. X( …Ronnie

    http://www.facebook.com/oneman.onewoman?v=wall

    Reply
    • 119. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:00 am

      P.S. Brian Brown has been named the General Manager of the Facebook page….& the crazies are already howling murder, violence & overthrow the government….yeah they have no agenda…..& I’m Cleopatra…..Queen of Denial….FAIL….LIARS!!!!….FASCISTS!!!!!….. X( …Ronnie

      Reply
  • 120. BubbaN  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Does no one remember the lessons of West Wing?

    Mr. Obama – Feel free to plagerize this is you wish…

    Reply
    • 121. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      I know, right?

      Great show.

      His problem is that he thinks logic and compromising works with everyone. He deals in good faith and expects others to do so too. Problem is, the Right doesn’t, and he really should have learned that by now.

      One secret from a former Rightwing member: The Right is absolutely TERRIFIED of the Left. They truly believe the left will bring all kinds of socialism and anti-Christian secular values. Indeed, that we have already done so. Stand up just a little to them, and they will cave or flee.

      Even if they fight, the Left hasn’t lost anything. They have at LEAST shown the base they are there and are fighting. They can show the Rs balking. That’s what’s so insane about the DADT vote decision. Let the Rs filibuster and plaster it all over TV. You’ll win in the court of public opinion if nowhere else.

      Reply
  • 122. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:03 am

    UPDATE (in Perry) If you are running out of crazy stuff to read, here’s some more.

    Amicus Brief of The Ethics and Public Policy Center in support of Proponents (Appellants)

    So far, my favorite part is the misspelling in this title: THE DISTRICT JUDGE MADE AN EXTRAORDINARY SERIES OF
    TRIAL-RELATED ERRORES THAT BENEFITED PLAINTIFFS

    Reply
    • 123. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:09 am

      hehe an error in ERRORES. There was a blatant incorrect spelling in a brief yesterday, too.

      Reply
      • 124. nightshayde  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:18 am

        It’s right up there with misspelling “misspelling.” LOL!

        Reply
    • 125. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:09 am

      Gotta take the humor where you can find it, right?

      Reply
    • 126. Freddy  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:29 am

      Kathleen, I have to ask, does the Appeals court have to pay any attention to these briefs or is it just at their discretion? One would think that the more wackadoodle briefs there are, the more likely it would be that the courts start to ignore them and classify them as a waste of time and paper.
      My 2 cents. Freddy

      Reply
      • 127. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:32 am

        Amen. Maybe all these briefs are simply being filed for our entertainment while we await the Real Stuff, as well as for our p8tt law class practice.

        Reply
      • 128. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:39 am

        I am not sure, but all these briefs being filed kind of proves what animus there is in society against LGBTs, and just how much power the churches have, and how little power the LGBT community has. Might these help us?

        Reply
      • 129. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:47 am

        The Court is under no obligation to consider any of this tripe. And we may be seeing the last of this today. I think the 9th Circuit is one of the appeals courts that has adopted a rule setting a deadline for submission of amicus briefs as 7 days after the submission of the trial brief of the party they are supporting.

        Reply
      • 130. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:56 am

        Here are the 9th Circuit’s rules re amicus briefs:
        http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm#1095840

        (e) Time for Filing. An amicus curiae must file its brief, accompanied by a motion for filing when necessary, no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being supported is filed. An amicus curiae that does not support either party must file its brief no later than 7 days after the appellant’s or petitioner’s principal brief is filed. A court may grant leave for later filing, specifying the time within which an opposing party may answer.

        Reply
      • 131. Freddy  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:02 am

        NOOOOOOOO, please don’t tell me that this could be the end of the cheap entertainment, I find that most of these are better than prime time television. I honestly can’t see how sheople can actually think things like what is printed in the briefs. Of course, you would also think that a person with a J.D. would be able to spell correctly too, kinda like why I always send my work to my sister for proofing.

        Reply
      • 132. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:16 am

        I should amend my above statement… it’s not the case that the court is under no obligation to consider these briefs. The judges need to consider these briefs, just as they consider everything submitted in the case. But, as the judges do with every piece of evidence and legal argument submitted, they make a decision as to what weight to give them.

        I agree that the briefs which rely heavily on religious arguments and drip with condescension toward gs&ls just help prove Plaintiffs’ case.

        Reply
    • 133. Rhonda  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:49 am

      Can they whine any louder. “Only OUR unsupportable evidence is acceptable. Only OUR wacky theories can be facts!”
      “He hates us! waaaahhhhhhhhhhh”

      Reply
  • 134. Seraphiel  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Well. So much for the Obama team being smart and decent.

    After the Senate debacle they should have just done nothing and let the injunction go through.

    I guess this makes him a fierce advocate for meh, whatever.

    Reply
  • 135. Seraphiel  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.

    “Traditionally” does not mean it is required to do so, and certainly not after a verdict has been handed down. Next?

    This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy.

    But they won’t, because they’re dominated by cowards and fascists, like most legislative bodies tend to be. This is why the courts exist. So, yeah, filing an entirely unnecessary argument against a fully justified injunction DOES diminish the President’s commitment. It diminishes it to nothing.

    The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold.

    Annoying, but irrelevant. Nothing that happened in the Senate required him to pursue this case any further.

    The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address

    He certainly does speak a lot. Call me when he actually does something.

    , and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal.

    So, again, if so many high-ranking people are in favor of ending this discrimination, why spend taxpayer money defending it in court?

    And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal.

    Here, let me save you some time by giving you a plan right now. Ready? Take notes, this is complicated: stop firing people for being gay. Now, if you’ll just send me the money you were wasting on the DOD’s “continuing to work on a plan” we’ll call it even.

    The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    Reply
  • […] Department of Justice tells Judge Phillips: Keep enforcing DADT and limit ruling only to "Plaintiffs… […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,303 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...