Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The DADT lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:29 PM
Original message
The DADT lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 09:41 PM by Recursion
Republicans are suing a Democratic administration to obtain equal protection for homosexuals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life/

Dan Savage recently suggested the GOP could get a lot of gay votes with a very little effort. Between this and Olson's prop 8 case we may be seeing an attempt at that.

Editing to make more clear:

The Log Cabin Republicans sought and obtained the injunction blocking DADT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AmericanMan1958 Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sleep with a Snake..
Don't cry if you get bit.

How the GOP fools people with their cheap Politics never senses to amaze me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. This year, Republicans have overturned Prop 8 and now DADT
What have we Democrats done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Told the Stonewall Democrats to STFU
That's what we were told in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I intellectually understand that the administration has a responsibility to defend the law in court
But, damn, it stings to see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Is that even true? I'm asking because I don't know.
I'm just thinking about how Arnold and the AG in CA declined to defend Prop 8 after the judge overturned it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The CA thing is news because that almost never happens
A law is presumptively held to be Constitutional and the executive branch has a responsibility to defend any current law in the courts (barring absurd law-school-example situations). The issue in CA is that the executive branch would have to take a positive step of initiating a court case to continue; there's not really much precedent that they are required to actually start a case to defend a law, just that if there is a case challenging a law they are supposed to present the strongest argument for that law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
44. They certainly don't have to defend it so vigorously or nastily
Hey, separate but equal was once the law, too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. They didn't call any witnesses
Edited on Fri Sep-10-10 06:21 AM by Recursion
Their "defense" consisted of filing the legislative history of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Have you ever read the DOJ brief?
Bestiality, GLBT Americans aren't protected under the Constitution, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. we'll get bitten by a rat instead
if we have to wait for the Dems to do anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Another Obama victory.
Congrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Huh? The administration is *defending* DADT
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 09:39 PM by Recursion
The Log Cabin Republicans were (successfully) trying to get it declared unconstitutional
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think they were being sarcastic maybe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Ah, right
I'm biting my nails over the Mississippi State/Auburn game so my sarcasm meter is a little distracted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. And, State loses on a 4th & 10
Not relevant to the thread, but my mind is back on the forum now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well, someone had to do it.
Complaining alone wasn't going to get it done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I'm usually one of the few surviving Obama cheerleaders
But this really, really pisses me off. In the past 6 months Republicans have overturned Prop. 8 and now DADT. ****ing Republicans filed and argued those suits. What the hell is the matter with our party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. The lawsuit began in 2004.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your shit stirring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Is your point that they were originally suing a Republican administration?
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 10:00 PM by Recursion
Fine, they are still Republicans. Olson's case was suing a Republican administration too. Who fucking cares? What's pissing me off is that it's Republicans that are taking the lead on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. "Republicans are suing a Democratic administration to obtain equal protection for homosexuals."
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 10:02 PM by DaughterOfBilitis
You should edit our OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes, they are currently suing a Democratic administration
When the case began they were suing a Republican administration. Attachment for governments is strange that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No, the bench trial began under a Democratic administration.
They originally sued a Republican administration.

Nuance counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. And the government presented no witnesses
Nuance counts, but impact matters a lot too. The impact here is that Republicans have made two significant advances in gay rights in the past 6 months, and Democrats were either not involved or nominally opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Who is "shit stirring"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. LCR didn't sue a Democratic administration.
Do you support the first statement made by the poster? Because it's factually incorrect.

You'd probably have a bit more credibility if you dabbled in facts over emotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count..."
Care to answer my question without violating the forum rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. LOL subtle! Well, my apologies, welcome to DU, glad you stumbled on the site & you studied the rules
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 10:33 PM by Bluebear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. I'd accept your apology, if your intent was true.
But you edited your initial response, which I saw, so why the change of heart?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Because I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
It's an emotional issue for many of us and many people have signed up for the distinct purpose of being contrary. If it's not the case, I apologize for jumping the gun. Best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaughterOfBilitis Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I can assure you that I didn't sign up to be contrary.
I just didn't like the tone set by the first sentence from the poster. I, too, have become disillusioned with the slow pace from Democrats, but I take issue with the hyperbole in the first statement.

Thank you for apologizing. It shows that you are an honest man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I am honest.
A hothead sometimes but honest :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. No, it's really not
The respondent is the Solicitor General, still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. We owe the Log Cabin Republicans a debt of gratitude for advancing this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Unfortunately, yes. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Agreed. But hey, somebody has to lead on the issue!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. My 7 years in the military tell me this won't change much any time soon
It's very hard to get a bureaucracy to actually change if there isn't significant buy-in.

But, it's important to have this legal decision out there. And I'm furious it wasn't Democrats who made it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. I can't wait for the "survey" of military families to be published.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. "How do you feel about showering with a known sodomite in a state of extreme arousal?"
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 10:47 PM by QC
Would you object to having him bugger you, since it is bound to happen anyway?

Do you men *that* survey?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Would you A) Call a chaplain? B).....yeah that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Here's a scan of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. "Would repealing DADT affect your family readiness?" - Good heavens. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. "I would avoid getting to know one of them", "I would try to get to know one of them"
*shudder*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
46. That is a seriously tacky mirror!
To the yard sale!:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. Thanks for that bit of info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #45
54. Oh, child! Oh, girl! Like you care!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. About you?? Hell no! About this issue? Definitely
Thanks for your concern, honeylamb! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
31. I find that I don't care who filed against who.
The ruling was a good one, and one more step toward equal protection under the law. This is a good thing. If Republicons want to take credit, I'll give it to 'em, because Democrats certainly didn't earned it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
42. I guess all those people who wondered how in the world gay people could join an "R" party/group
now have their answer: because Democrats have taken them for granted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
47. I've said it more than once...
This is the issue that repugs could claim to really split the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
48. The existance of the Log Cabin Republicans boggles my mind.
Almost the entire remainder of the Republican party is homophobic and pushes policies designed to take away GLBT rights.

Why do the Log Cabin Republicans stay with them? Perhaps they'd get their interests served better by joining us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. It probably just sucks to be a politically active "conservative" homosexual.
It probably just sucks to be a politically active "conservative" homosexual. There honestly isn't any party that wants you completely, except for possibly the Libertarians.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. A vocal cadre within the Republican party is homophobic
Edited on Fri Sep-10-10 06:25 AM by Recursion
Perhaps they'd get their interests served better by joining us.

Would they? What have we done for gay rights lately? The GOP is running an openly gay candidate for Lieutenant Governor here in MA. We don't simply get to be "the LGBT party" by default. Like I said: this year, Republicans have made significant advances against Prop 8 and DADT. If this keeps up, and their actions keep matching our rhetoric, things don't look good.

Everybody has issues they disagree with their party on. I think gun control is a horrible idea, but I still vote D. It's probably similar for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
53. Kudos to the Log Cabin Republicans.
Good for them for filing this lawsuit.

This is an excellent ruling. Of course, the Department of Justice will appeal this, however.

DADT repeal, like repeal of DOMA, will be handled through the courts. Since our Democratic Party leaders are too goddamned chickenshit cowardly to actually stand up for our civil rights. I've long since given up on any "fierce advocacy" from the party I've given my donations, my votes and my time for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-10 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
55. Good for them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC