| |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#47
06-04-2009, 09:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As for "which has no bearing whatsoever on whether those rights will be granted or not" -- that is not the situation. She emboldened the base of the peeps who do not want gay peoples' unions recognized in any way, which included civil unions and any facsimilie thereof. Finally, I get that she may have given "an honest answer" -- but, she lost because her personal views were not the right answer and she knew that. BTW - you never responded to what your reaction would be if she no offense and based on the way she was reared, said blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry.
__________________
 save the cheerleader - save the world 
|
|
#48
06-04-2009, 09:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But, don't take my word for it: ay groups grow impatient with Obama Published: June 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM Gay rights activists who backed Barack Obama in his U.S. presidential bid say they're frustrated with what they see as his inaction on gay and lesbian issues. "Obama is out of step with his (Democratic) party, which is overwhelmingly in favor of (same-sex) marriage at this stage," veteran gay rights activist David Mixner told the newspaper Politico. Same-sex marriage -- which first became a U.S. reality in 2004 -- is now legal in five New England states and Iowa. "Politicians are finding out that their voters are moving faster than they anticipated," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told Politico. The newspaper observed that "the otherwise dreaded former Vice President Dick Cheney" publicly supported gay marriage Monday -- "a position that puts him to the left of Obama," Politico said. Cheney has a gay daughter. The White House says Obama is not ready to push his highest-profile pro-gay positions but is expected to move forward soon on lower-profile gay issues, such as restrictions on visas for people with human immunodeficiency virus, Politico said. Obama "remains fully committed" to advancing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina said. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/...9311244144254/
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#49
06-04-2009, 09:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-whenever.html obama appears to be carrying on the clinton legacy of taking gay money and reneging on his promises, and i'm not the only person to notice.
|
|
#50
06-04-2009, 09:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#51
06-04-2009, 10:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 and on that note, as much as i'd like to get in an old school ledge discussion into the wee hours, i have to get to bed as i have to be at work at 6 a.m. 
|
|
#52
06-04-2009, 10:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#54
06-04-2009, 10:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#55
06-04-2009, 10:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Obama seeks assessment on gays in military No rush to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | February 1, 2009 WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions. They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security. Obama is hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration when it tried to open the ranks to gays and lesbians, only to be confronted by fierce resistance from lawmakers and commanders. Early in his presidency, Bill Clinton signed an order allowing gays to serve but was forced to back off. A compromise made it illegal for gays to serve openly, but also restricted investigations into service members' sexual behavior. "The Clinton experience makes a lot of folks [in the administration] apprehensive," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, which represents gay military personnel discharged under the current policy. Sarvis, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, recently met with Obama advisers on the subject. At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest - possibly not even this year - until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy. And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military. Mullen told reporters earlier this month that he is aware of the president's "intent to do this," but "there are no more specifics with respect to when." When the time comes, he said, he will give the president "my best military advice" on "the impact of what a potential change could be." During the campaign, Obama signaled his intention to allow gays to serve openly in the military, but did not commit to any timetable. Last April, Obama told the Advocate, a national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, that he believes there is "increasing recognition within the armed forces that [don't ask, don't tell] is a counterproductive strategy." As recently as Jan. 15, his spokesman made Obama's ultimate intentions clear. "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, responded when asked whether the new president would take action to overturn the 1993 law. "But it's 'Yes.' " But in addition to winning over the military, Obama and allies in Congress will also have to convince lawmakers in both parties that reversing the policy is necessary, according to several Capitol Hill sources involved in the deliberations. Only legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president can reverse "don't ask, don't tell." Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced. "I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views. The House of Representatives, with a larger Democratic margin than the Senate, is considered more likely to vote for overturning the current law when a companion bill is introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, whose office confirmed that she is drafting legislation. Still, Democratic boosters in the House face hurdles of their own. For example, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee that would have to vet any such legislation, "isn't there yet," said the congressional aide. Lauren Dealy, a spokeswoman for the committee, said Skelton supports "don't ask, don't tell" but added that he also believes the panel has a responsibility to reassess the policy at some point. In the meantime, longtime opponents of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" are preparing to fight any efforts to allow gays to serve openly. Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, has testified before Congress on the issue and says that open homosexuality in the military would severely weaken discipline. "Such a policy would impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions," Donnelly said in an interview. "I think the burden of proof is on those who say the [don't ask, don't tell] law should be repealed," she added. Advocates for lifting the ban say such arguments are outdated because national attitudes have changed considerably since the law was passed. And supporters of lifting the ban are arming themselves with a different argument they hope will tip the scales: that allowing gays to serve openly will improve the military. Government reports show that many of the servicemembers who have been discharged under the policy had critical skills, such as foreign-language proficiency, that are in short supply for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a point Obama raised in his April interview with the Advocate. Gay-rights groups also point to research by the University of California, Los Angeles that suggests allowing gays to serve openly would draw tens of thousands of additional recruits - patriotic Americans who have not enlisted because the current policy is perceived as hostile to gays. To help make their case they have also enlisted more than 100 retired generals and admirals who say the law should be changed. But Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara that has studied the issue, believes there is good reason for the Obama administration to move cautiously on the issue that harmed Clinton's relationship with the military. Yet Frank also said waiting too long could jeopardize the entire effort: "A delay could let opposition fester and build." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...s_in_military/ Also -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...t-tell-policy/ Quote:
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#56
06-04-2009, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#57
06-04-2009, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Moreover, Obama must be careful with the gay in the military thing. If he loses that issue, it will hurt him and set back the gay civil rights movement. Remember, the R's do not want to give gay people any rights in any way - again, based on the premise that gays are filthy, immoral people that cannot be in any way trusted. That whole - if you want to fill your church - preach hate thing. Also, it would not behoove Obama to overturn the law with an Executive Order, if that is even legal and, I think, an executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn't overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register. If Congress overturned Obama (highly unlikely on this issue) - it would be disastrous. Interestingly, Hillary has moved to allow same sex partners of American State Dept. personnel the same travel rights as same sex spouses. This is a very smart move in that it is the thin end of the wedge - an entree into this issue in a relatively benign area. On edit -- Here is an interesting article on the issue of gays in the military, which demonstrates how fay society has come: Don't Ask, Don't Tell - The Military Policy on Gays By Rod Powers, About.com May 26 2009 It may surprise some of you to learn that homosexuals are allowed to serve in today’s United States Military. They can serve, but they can’t engage in homosexual activities while in the military, nor can they tell anyone about their sexual preference. To do either is a basis for involuntary discharge. That’s the backbone of the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Throughout its history, the US Military has had an inconsistent policy when it came to homosexuals in the military. Prior to World War II, there was no written policy barring homosexuals from serving, although sodomy was considered a crime by military law ever since Revolutionary War times. In 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first soldier to be drummed out of the Continental Army for sodomy. Homosexuality - a Mental Condition During World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, the military defined homosexuality as a mental defect, and officially barred homosexuals from serving based on medical criteria. However, when personnel needs increased due to combat, the military developed a habit of relaxing its screening criteria. Many homosexual men and women serviced honorably during these conflicts. Unfortunately, these periods were short-lived. As soon as the need for combat personnel decreased, the military would involuntarily discharge them. A Complete Ban of Gays in the Military It wasn't until 1982 that the Department of Defense officially put in writing that “homosexuality was incompatible with military service,” when they published a DOD directive stating such. According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office, nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged under this new directive during the 1980s. The Birth of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" By the end of that decade, reversing the military's policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the military came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system. By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. President Clinton announced that he intended to keep his campaign promise by eliminating military discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, this didn't sit well with the Republican-controlled Congress. Congressional leaders threatened to pass legislation that would bar homosexuals from serving, if Clinton issued an executive order changing the policy. After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. However having sexual relations, or displaying romantic overtures with members of the same sex, or telling anyone about their sexual orientation is considered "homosexual conduct" under the policy and is a basis for involuntary discharge. This is now known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and is the current Department of Defense Policy. Changing Times At the time, most military leaders and young enlisted folk (who were forced to live in the barracks with a roommate) took a conservative view about allowing gays to serve openly in the military. I shared these concerns, and -- in fact -- penned the tounge-and-cheek article, Gays in the Military -- the Logistics1, when I first took over the About.com US Military site in 1999. However, times change.....so does the military.....and so have my views. Most junior enlisted (the one's who have to live in the barracks), today, see nothing wrong with homosexuality and would not be bothered by serving with those they know to be gay. Today, almost everyone gets a single room (with no roommate) following basic training and job school. In those few situations where military personnel share living accommodations (such as deployments and ships), it is generally several military members living together. I sincerely doubt there will be many cases of someone inappropriately "hitting on" anyone else around 49 or so witnesses. The Future of Gays in the Military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is going to go away, and gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. That much is clear -- the writing is on the wall. The question is, "when?" That is still uncertain. Like President Clinton before him, President Obama has promised to overturn the law, and allow gays to openly serve. However, like President Clinton, President Obama is facing stiff opposition. Senior military leaders and many Congressional leaders oppose any change. Obama is taking a different track than Clinton did. Instead of facing the issue head-on, and risking a serious challenge (thereby making several political enemies), the President has put the issue on a "back-burner," to leave for a later time. Don't expect this time to be soon. The President has shown a propensity to side with senior Pentagon officials when it comes to military issues since he's taken office. His decision to revive military trials for some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and to slow down his original plan for withdrawal of troops from Iraq are just two cases in point. I suspect the Obama administration will continue to "study the issue," for some time to come. At a time of his choosing (at the best "political time"), he will make his first move. I suspect that move will not be an attempt to overturn the policy, but rather an executive order to the Pentagon to simply stop homosexual discharges, while leaving the original policy on the books. Later, he can negotiate a permanent change with Congressional leaders. This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/mille.../a/dontask.htm ©2009 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. Links in this article: 1. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../aa011000a.htm
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world Last edited by strandinthewind; 06-04-2009 at 10:36 PM..
|
|
#58
06-04-2009, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Seems like it cuts both ways Jason. I believe there are moderates in both parties. I do hope that the gay rights issues can be advanced by our government in the near future.
|
|
#59
06-04-2009, 10:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
To me, it is a no brainer - give the gays their rights and move on - I think like in Mass., Vt, and other places, once it is in place, no one really gives a shiitte. But, there is money to be made on both sides - Prop 8 alone generated hundreds of millions in revenue on both sides when you count the peripheral stuff. I mean look at Perez Hilton. While he likely believes in this cause, his site and ergo income sure benefited from the controversy he alone created.
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world Last edited by strandinthewind; 06-04-2009 at 11:01 PM..
|
|
#60
06-04-2009, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
Billy Burnette Lp Self Titled On Columbia - Vg+ To Vg++ / Vg++
$11.99
BILLY BURNETTE - GIMME YOU - 1981 COLUMBIA RECORDS VINYL ALBUM - (VG/VG+)
$5.00
Billy Burnette - Self-Titled LP - 1980 1st Pressing 12" Columbia LP + Lyrics VG+
$4.50
BILLY BURNETTE - (SELF- TITLED) - 1979 POLYDOR RECORDS PROMO VINYL LP - (VG/VG)
$5.50
BILLY BURNETTE 45 RPM Promo Record "SHOO-BE-DOO" 1978 Rock Unplayed MINT
$6.70
Linear Mode
