Key Cases Loom in Pennsylvania Gay Ma...

Key Cases Loom in Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Fight

There are 33 comments on the EDGE story from Mar 20, 2014, titled Key Cases Loom in Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Fight. In it, EDGE reports that:

When U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin decides this year whether Pennsylvania must recognize same-sex marriages from other states, she'll do so from her perch above Independence Mall, where about 40 people staged an early gay rights protest in 1965.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Mar 21, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
I think it's clear that Clinton was a mixed bag on lgbt rights (and lots of other things like trade and public assistance,) in a very homophobic environment.
Too bad he so naively promised he would repeal DADT with no apparent understanding of exactly how hated lgbt people were than and how much pushback there would be. Even from such hilariously "respected" people as Sam Nunn, the cretin.
Actually Clinton is the one who established DADT as a compromise between the existing absolute ban and open service.

But I agree he was naïve to believe it was going to be easy to overturn that ban without pushback from Congress.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#23 Mar 21, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Clinton is the one who established DADT as a compromise between the existing absolute ban and open service.
But I agree he was naïve to believe it was going to be easy to overturn that ban without pushback from Congress.
I place the blame for the way DADT was implemented squarely on Clinton's shoulders. There was a Don't Harass clause, as well. But official harassment of gays in the military escalated immediately upon its passage.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#24 Mar 21, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I place the blame for the way DADT was implemented squarely on Clinton's shoulders. There was a Don't Harass clause, as well. But official harassment of gays in the military escalated immediately upon its passage.
Clinton was POTUS. As POTUS, Clinton was Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. AS Commander-In-Chief, Clinton COULD HAVE, and SHOULD HAVE simply issued a military order to all those under his command that there was to be NO discrimination of any kind against gay and lesbian members of the Armed Forces. But he wouldn't do it. And at the same time, civilian members of the Defense Dept. could be openly gay, and it was not against military regulations, nor federal law.

WHY Clinton didn't simply issue an order is a mystery to me.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#26 Mar 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton was POTUS. As POTUS, Clinton was Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. AS Commander-In-Chief, Clinton COULD HAVE, and SHOULD HAVE simply issued a military order to all those under his command that there was to be NO discrimination of any kind against gay and lesbian members of the Armed Forces. But he wouldn't do it. And at the same time, civilian members of the Defense Dept. could be openly gay, and it was not against military regulations, nor federal law.
WHY Clinton didn't simply issue an order is a mystery to me.
You are either purposefully ignoring history, or you are even dumber than the rest of us believed.(I'm pretty sure you're just being transparently dishonest.)

As you know, Clinton had indeed promised to issue an order ending discrimination against gays. DADT was immediately concocted by Congress in order to tie his hands and prevent the order. The original plan was even worse than DADT (although it's hard for me to imagine how any thing could have been worse than the actual implementation of DADT). DADT was a compromise intended to stave off a stampede.

You will note that DADT had overwhelming support in Congress. Had Clinton vetoed the original legislation, he would have been overridden. DADT was a very bad compromise from the point-of-view of the gay servicemembers. But the implementation was even worse.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 Mar 21, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either purposefully ignoring history, or you are even dumber than the rest of us believed.(I'm pretty sure you're just being transparently dishonest.)
As you know, Clinton had indeed promised to issue an order ending discrimination against gays. DADT was immediately concocted by Congress in order to tie his hands and prevent the order. The original plan was even worse than DADT (although it's hard for me to imagine how any thing could have been worse than the actual implementation of DADT). DADT was a compromise intended to stave off a stampede.
You will note that DADT had overwhelming support in Congress. Had Clinton vetoed the original legislation, he would have been overridden. DADT was a very bad compromise from the point-of-view of the gay servicemembers. But the implementation was even worse.
As someone who served both before and during DADT, I don't think there was really that much difference in official military policy.

True, more people were kicked out under DADT than before, but from what I witnessed that was mostly due to people outing themselves or being more careless than they were pre-DADT.

Either way, the military wasn't ready for such a drastic change overnight and the Congress certainly wasn't ready either. And a decade of DADT actually exposed the stories of our service to the nation, and more importantly changed a lot of minds WITHIN the military when valued team members were kicked out for no reason other than who they happened to love.

It was never going to be an overnight change, just like marriage equality was never going to happen overnight.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#28 Mar 21, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who served both before and during DADT, I don't think there was really that much difference in official military policy..
I agree. Except that we were promised DADT would make it possible to serve. Instead, they continued to discharge based on hearsay evidence by people who weren't even in the military. It was McCarthyism on a small scale.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Mar 21, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Except that we were promised DADT would make it possible to serve. Instead, they continued to discharge based on hearsay evidence by people who weren't even in the military. It was McCarthyism on a small scale.
In the end it was still more of a plus than a minus. A lot of people sacrificed their careers- either intentionally or unintentionally- so those who served after us would be able to do so openly.

Remember, the "Don't Tell" part was key in the federal court ruling which was overturning the ban on free speech & equal protection grounds, which prompted the Congress to finally act.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#30 Mar 21, 2014
Hey, Sheeple! Congratulations!
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140321/P...

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#31 Mar 21, 2014
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
This govt left or right has done more harm than good for any family here and abroad. The Clinton's are a couple of pigs.
Relax. Your trough is safe.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Mar 21, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Hey, Sheeple! Congratulations!
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140321/P...
Thanks. I just got the news between NCAA games.

No stay issued, but the Gov is requesting an emergency stay from the 6th circuit.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#33 Mar 21, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I just got the news between NCAA games.
No stay issued, but the Gov is requesting an emergency stay from the 6th circuit.
Did you read the opinion? The judge shoved his fist so far down Regnerus' throat that it came out the other side!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#35 Mar 24, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
I think it's clear that Clinton was a mixed bag on lgbt rights (and lots of other things like trade and public assistance,) in a very homophobic environment.
Too bad he so naively promised he would repeal DADT with no apparent understanding of exactly how hated lgbt people were than and how much pushback there would be. Even from such hilariously "respected" people as Sam Nunn, the cretin.
EXCEPT..... That without DADT, it would have been *FAR* more difficult to prove that GLBT soldiers are every bit as capable and driven as their straight counterparts are. Without DADT, the military and the Feds would have simply continued to pretend that there weren't any GLBT folks in the military, so how could a law banning them be a problem? They're not here anyway, so banning them doesn't affect anyone.

It seems odd today, and I'm positive that the eventual outcomes of equal rights was not part of Clinton's plan, but that's how both DOMA and DADT ended up. They both clearly defined the problems with laws banning equal rights and made the issues provable in court.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#36 Mar 24, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
EXCEPT..... That without DADT, it would have been *FAR* more difficult to prove that GLBT soldiers are every bit as capable and driven as their straight counterparts are. Without DADT, the military and the Feds would have simply continued to pretend that there weren't any GLBT folks in the military, so how could a law banning them be a problem? They're not here anyway, so banning them doesn't affect anyone.
It seems odd today, and I'm positive that the eventual outcomes of equal rights was not part of Clinton's plan, but that's how both DOMA and DADT ended up. They both clearly defined the problems with laws banning equal rights and made the issues provable in court.
That is definitely the case with DOMA. Without DOMA, the federal government would have recognized marriages from Massachusetts and, somewhat later, New York. So Baker would have controlled in Utah and all those other states now having their state DOMA's overturned. DOMA clearly took the issue out of the realm of state autonomy and raised a federal question.

Having clearly outlined a federal question, SCOTUS was compelled to act, setting a new precedent that gay couples must be treated equally under federal law. And this precedent is the basis under which state DOMA's are now falling.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Havertown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where's bucky pagel? Jul 16 davis st 1
News A Movie Theater That Did It Right (May '06) Jul 16 bobc70 28
News 2 held in Upper Darby meth raid Jun '16 frank 1
please help the people May '16 Awful 4
News Reconnecting with faith through washing of dead May '16 Tim 3
Upper Darby to vote on name change to "Pale Hell" (Jan '12) Apr '16 Ned Cue 28
ShopRite acquires Manoa SuperFresh lease (Mar '13) Apr '16 Mike McGee 29

Havertown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Havertown Mortgages