Don’t Ask Don’t tell has been voted to be repealed. Yay!
I’d say more or find a relevant news article to link to, but I’m currently sitting in the New Orleans airport and functioning on 4 hours of sleep. So you get shoddy blogging, sorry.
So, now that we think it’s okay for gays to be open about their sexuality when they’re getting shot at fighting for our rights, will we actually extend those rights to them and let them marry when they come home? Or is that too much to ask?
Oh well. Baby steps.
I was saying the same thing about Disney Movies earler. I went and saw Tron (Which is pretty), and when I left I saw that DADT moved to Cloture.
Yep, baby steps. But I mean, a good 70% of Americans or something said that they think DADT should be repealed, so it sounds like public thinking as well as legality of LGBT rights is changing. Of course, marriage is different, because then it turns into this whole “marriage is religious” bs. I live in San Francisco, so while fewer people here tend to openly oppose homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice” for fear of social suicide (except for your occasional obnoxious street preacher), there are still a lot of people who say that marriage is sacred and therefore a different issue :/
The right wing in this country(by far not everyone who’s a conservative) is like a horse that has to be led to water and forced to drink. Progress can be achieved so long as we stick to our guns and are just as stubborn as they are. DREAM act failed, but DADT dies, baby steps, baby steps.
This is great to hear. If I was in the military I really wouldn’t care who the guy beside me loved, as long as I could depend upon him when the shit hit the fan.And as for gay marriage, hey, it’ll happen. I’m really glad that my family lives in Canada though, and my sister can legally marry the woman she loves. Only problem is, with my sister marrying a woman I can’t make the normal threat/warning about treating my sister well. Yes, I still have the outdated notion in my head that guys can’t hit girls. Hey, it’s the way I was raised.(Not that I go around hitting people all that much, except for during kendo when everyone is in armor and allowed to hit each other, but it’s amazing how many people think that just because your big and quiet that you must be dangerous.)
I see this as very good news. I mean, the military desegregated before interracial marriage was legal throughout the U.S.
I think when people see gays fighting for their rights, they’ll realize that gays should get the right to marry too. It’ll take time, but it could happen in my lifetime.
Yes, absolutely. So for now I’ll remain optimistic :)
Yup, only took 19 years between desegregation of military and supreme court ruling in favor of interracial marriage. Although I’m hoping this one will take less time.
Me too. It’s hard to imagine that over 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in some states.
DADT can be stopped by an executive order from Obama today, with no debate, no legislation and nobody will be able to do ANYTHING about that till Jan 2013. Why does he not do this? No fighting, no political payoffs, no deals with congress to get some extra pork, just an executive order and poof, no more problem for as long as he remains President?
Yeah, for me too. I mean, there are still people who were in the civil rights movement who are still alive, and while it’s not completely gone (I doubt it ever will) you get ostricized for thinking that way. All within a lifetime.
I object to your assertion that people in the military are fighting for our rights. If anything they are endangering our country and thereby undermining our rights. Can you think of a single instance in your lifetime where the military has done anything that would count as fighting for our rights?
Not just yay, but FUCKING HELL YES!And I’m straight. I fought hard for the equality of my friends and neighbors and will continue to do so for other issues.
Sure he can, but far better and a far stronger message if it is not a unilateral presidential action but one of the house and the senate.
fighting for our rightslol.
I think the same way, Frank. You know who fights for our rights? US. We do, every single day, by blogging, writing to our senators and governors, being active in the mainstream, etc. We fight for our rights every day, making sure they’re not trampled on.If the military fights for anything, it’s our safety… IF that. Even that is doubtful. They fight, unfortunately, for our government’s political interests. It’s sad, but true. The men and women of our armed forces unknowingly fight for political agendas and showings of power.
All I can say is: About fucking time!
Your question contains its own answer. Or don’t you care about what might happen after January 2013 if things go badly?
It’s actually not quite over yet. The President has to certify that changing the policy won’t hurt military readiness (a foregone conclusion, obviously) and then there’s another 60-day delay for the service branches to write new regs.In the meantime I don’t know what advice closeted servicepeople are getting. Probably “sit tight”.
I think people have a tendency to strive to move forward on their own rights when the oppressors throw them a bone, when I think it’s more productive for them to realize that they’ve been served a heaping bowl of privilege and need to use that privilege to advance the rights of people who have no one to speak up for them. So instead of saying, “Now that gays can serve openly in the military, let’s legalize gay marriage,” maybe we can say, “Now that gays can serve openly in the military, let’s work our asses off to make sure trans people can serve openly” or “let’s make sure our servicewomen can have access to abortion when they’re raped by the guys that are supposed to look out for them.”
Wow. Just wow. One can make the argument that the wars that the US are currently fighting aren’t protecting the freedoms of Americans (as that is not really the mission, after all these years, and never really was). But to claim that soldiers are endangering our country and undermining our rights is totally dickish. People enlist in the military to defend our freedoms, and they fight and die for that. They go where they’re told to go and fight who they’re told to fight. It’s illegal for them to defy those orders, and it’s clear that many soldiers who are currently fighting or are veterans of these wars are conflicted about those orders. Your beef should not be, and I hope really is not, with the people who fight the wars and is actually for the class privileged wimps who authorize it, continue to fund it, and continue to use the blood of our young people for political gain.
Them there gheys better not get no married none… next thing you know, my heterosexual marriage is at risk! Hellfire, I could wake up the next week with my wife married to a chicken and me married to the coffee table! Or in other words, since homosexuals already live together like married folks, I don’t see how giving them the legal title and benefits of marriage affects me either way. All that gaying it up didn’t affect me when it was just living together, it didn’t affect me when it became a domestic partnership, so how the hell could it hurt me if they call it marriage?
Maybe we could compromise with the dumbfuckistanis. Has anyone tried introducing a bill that will allow monogamous marriages between two people, regardless of sex, and polygamous marriage of one man to one light truck and one or more firearms?
I agree that it’s a bit unfair to blame the soldiers, and many to most probably signed up to defend your rights. But they aren’t necessarily defending your rights currently just by having the appropriate intentions. As you say, there are situations in which soldiers could get into trouble by acting according to their own values, and can be pressured to work against those values.
Actually my beef is with both the soldiers and the political leaders. I understand that once they have enlisted they don’t have a choice about following orders. But they did have a choice about enlisting in the first place. If they did that because they thought that going half way around the world to kill whomever a president decides he doesn’t like would defend our freedoms, then they are idiots at best, and their idiocy gets people killed. To put it another way, by your own statement, “they go where they’re told to go and fight who they’re told to fight.” What kind of people does that make them? I don’t want anyone meeting that description within a hundred miles of me.
Wow. Just wow.Well, OK. A lot of people like to start with their strongest point, but I guess there’s nothing wrong with opening with argument by incredulity.One can make the argument that the wars that the US are currently fighting aren’t protecting the freedoms of Americans (as that is not really the mission, after all these years, and never really was).So you accept the point that the wars being fought aren’t “fighting for our rights”. Good so far.But to claim that soldiers are endangering our country and undermining our rights is totally dickish.But you’d rather no-one actually say so out loud? And you think you can just tramp around the planet bringing ‘peace’ to other peoples’ homelands without any possibility of them objecting. Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, some of the enmity people in the Middle East and elsewhere have for the US is because of things your soldiers have done to them while ‘fighting for your freedom’?People enlist in the military to defend our freedoms, and they fight and die for that.But wait, you just said that not only were the wars they’re fight not doing that, that wasn’t even the point of them in the first place. You really can’t have this one both ways.They go where they’re told to go and fight who they’re told to fight.Like mercenaries. So not actually fighting for ‘rights’ or ‘freedom’, just pointing their guns at whoever they’re told to point them at.It’s illegal for them to defy those orders, Ah. The ‘just following orders’ line. Also known as the Nuremberg defence. You might like to consider who used it at Nuremberg, and how well it worked out for them. and it’s clear that many soldiers who are currently fighting or are veterans of these wars are conflicted about those orders.The (current) war in Afghanistan was started almost ten years ago. Anyone that’s joined up since then knew exactly what they were signing up for. People that have been in longer than that might be able to build a case, but when exactly was the last time another country attacked the US and forced it into a war of self defence? 1945? There can’t be too many soldiers still serving ho joined up for that.Your beef should not be, and I hope really is not, with the people who fight the wars Sure. Actually holding a gun and pulling the trigger doesn’t make you responsible for person you kill. Even if you freely volunteered to do it.
What kind of people does that make them? I don’t want anyone meeting that description within a hundred miles of me.So pretty much anyone with a job disgusts you? Lawyers, counselors, doctors, teachers, and soldiers all have to do their jobs, whether or not they find the work unsavory at a particular time. These are jobs in which their own feelings are secondary to the needs of others. I’m against war as much as the next person, but I recognize that people enter the military first and foremost to defend the rights of Americans. That’s why I want our military personnel to be used to help us, not hurt us. But it’s not the fault of military personnel that idiots send them into useless wars.
Well,Gee, Smarty Pants Mamorski. How about writing in complete sentences next time? You’re going to start with “well,” as an argument? And you expect me to read the rest of your post? Puh-leez.
It absolutely is the fault of military personnel that they chose to join an organization centered around violence and killing. And as I’m guessing everyone in the military either joined after the Iraq war started or has had a chance to leave since it did, they did choose to support that war by joining/remaining in the military. So don’t pretend they didn’t make a choice to participate in that particular war, every single one of them did. Their needs aren’t secondary to to the needs of others, they chose to take a job where they get to kill people to serve the desires of whomever happens to be in the white house. That does disgust me, and it is nothing like what lawyers, counselors, doctors, or teachers do.How can you claim to be against war and for the military at the same time? That seems like a contradiction to me. The military has no other purpose but war.
Don’t trouble yourself if it feels too much like hard work. I’m sure everyone else will be won over by the rhetorical tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears going “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.
Hooray, gays can serve openly! Now our soldiers can get back to what’s really important: fighting unpopular and unjustifiable foreign wars with nebulously defined goals and corrupt, semi-competent leadership.
You could always threaten to send her/your mom over if she ever dares to so much as make your sister frown. Simple, yet effective :)
Well, hopefully you got one of them here gheys to do your living room. Then you’ll at least be married to a really NICE coffee table…
To keep to the topic at hand (or the question that was asked), I don’t understand why anyone (gay or straight) would want the government to “define” what marriage is (which includes determining who is allowed to marry). A marriage should be a civil contract between 2 (or more) parties that the government just enforces.On the day I got married, in the state in which I got married, the law defined marriage in one way (and by “defined marriage” I include not only who can marry, but under what circumstances the marriage may end, what financial arrangements are to be made post-marriage, what access to offspring is to be allowed post-marriage, etc.). I changed states, and in the new state, marriage is defined differently. Additionally, staying in one state is no guarantee that the definition will remain constant, as state legislatures keep redefining marriage already.Why not get the government out of the marriage business and just let people draw up partnership documents (with as many or as few provisions as they want), and have the states enforce them?In such a situation, modification of what YOUR marriage means is up to you and your partner(s). Not Congress, or a state legislature, or your parents, or your neighbors, etc. You and your partners. You changing what your marriage means doesn’t change what mine means, and vice versa. So everyone can have exactly the marriage that they want (provided they can find a partner to agree), without any interference from anyone outside of their marriage.The remaining issues can be handled easily. For example: One such issue is access to a person in a hospital. In many places currently, a “married” person can visit a spouse in a hospital in situations where an unmarried partner cannot. But one can put that in the marriage contract: My partner is to always have access to me in the hospital for as long as our partnership has not been terminated by either of us (or some such wording).
no matter how marriage is defined, we all have to accept that married people have different rights compared to unmarried people. it’s things like wills, insurance, taxes, adoption, the right to decide what happens to your partner in the instance of their death / illness, etc. no matter where you are in most states, if your genitals match the genitals of your partner’s, you don’t get whatever rights other couples get. and that’s a problem. it doesn’t matter how marriage is defined- there are benefits to a legal partnership. i love being canadian. my dad’s married to my stepdad. they’re unbelievably happy together. i don’t want to live in a place where they could be denied that happiness. ETA: there are instances where same-sex partners of a person sick in hospital were denied visitation because the hospital didn’t recognize their partnership. i’m not saying legal marriage would protect same-sex partners from bigots, but it helps to give an air of bureaucratic legitimacy, however messed up it is to need that.