Failure to protect

[Genersis]

...."They want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide," he wrote. "The only way I'm wearing for them is if they all commit suicide. I can't believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid.

In another post, he wrote, "it pisses me off, though, that we make special purple fag day for them. I like that fags can't procreate. I also enjoy that they often give each other AIDS and die...I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off."

*Grinds teeth*:mad:
I will not say my mind...as i don't think it coulld be done...or make much sense due to the number of profanities.

So i will simply say: The human race DESPERATELY needs some weeding......

[Cardiganwearer]

According to the polls the majority of Americans support ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the House of Representatives have voted to end it, the Senate failed to bring it to a vote and a federal court ruled it unconstitutional. Yet Obama's administration still feels it necessary to appeal that ruling.

Obama promised to be a 'fierce advocate' for gay-rights yet I've heard little of that advocacy from the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency.

The gay community sells itself very cheaply if they would vote for Obama so long as he is at least slightly better that the Republican alternative, the Religious Right drives a much harder bargain with the Republicans.

Just my thoughts...

I'm no constitutional expert but I think that Obama is obliged to appeal the ruling because his oath of office requires him to uphold the law and it's still law until both houses say otherwise. It's nothing personal.

I'm sure someone will be along any minute to tell me I'm talking out of my ar...merican constitution.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

I'm no constitutional expert but I think that Obama is obliged to appeal the ruling because his oath of office requires him to uphold the law and it's still law until both houses say otherwise. It's nothing personal.

I'm sure someone will be along any minute to tell me I'm talking out of my ar...merican constitution.

If the president can not lead his country by making a ruling on a basic human rights issue, but have to wait until the two houses agree. Then why have a president at all, if he is only a puppet with the two houses pulling his strings.

[marshlander]

Worzel Gummage's intended comes to mind :frown: although doesn't the same thing happen in many democracies?

[Cardiganwearer]

If the president can not lead his country by making a ruling on a basic human rights issue, but have to wait until the two houses agree. Then why have a president at all, if he is only a puppet with the two houses pulling his strings.

The American constitution does not need me to defend it, it stands as it is.

However, I'll give it a go. To take your point to it's logical conclusion, why have the house and the senate at all if the president can be sole legislator on any point he deems a human rights issue? The framers of the constitution were very wary of anything resembling the tyrany they perceived they had left behind in Europe. They were being very careful not to leave open the possibility of an elected dictatorship.

By thus constraining the president they protected (to some extent) the people from the consequences of electing a complete arse, something that recent history shows is entirely possible

[fredv3b]

I'm no constitutional expert but I think that Obama is obliged to appeal the ruling because his oath of office requires him to uphold the law and it's still law until both houses say otherwise. It's nothing personal.

Sorry to disagree, but Obama has also sworn to uphold the Constitution and a court has ruled that DADT is against the Constitution, so by the same logic he is also duty bound not to appeal the ruling. As far as I am aware the he is not legally bound to appeal. He may be politically obliged to appeal, he may also feel it sets a bad precedent for a mere District Court to effectively strike own an act of Congress in its entirety, but that is for him to choose.

[eastofeden]

Obama promised to be a 'fierce advocate' for gay-rights yet I've heard little of that advocacy from the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency.

The gay community sells itself very cheaply if they would vote for Obama so long as he is at least slightly better that the Republican alternative, the Religious Right drives a much harder bargain with the Republicans.

I had to plug my nose to vote for Obama and his stance on gay issues were a slight problem for me but I would hardly compare the gay community to the religious right...everything is not black, white and extreme. ...and a vote against Sarah Palin is NOT selling myself cheaply by any means...I could not disagree with you more on that point.

There are other issues equally important to me that have nothing to do with being gay...some even more important (certain enviromental issues come to mind) ...gay issues are just one consideration for me when considering a candidate.

I think of the 9 Democratic candidates in 2008 where you take a test to find the one who best suits you Obama came in dead last for me each time I took the test and I took both the simple and complex tests. My #1 choice was Dennis Kucinich on every test which brings me to one of THE most important considerations for me...I follow the money trail...who exactly is supporting you financially? I prefer politicians who are not owned by huge corporations and Kucinich (and Ron Paul) were the only two candidates who were not owned and funded by corporate interests. They were also the two people who did not lie...who said NO to Iraq ...they are who they say they are. BTW..Kucinich was one of only two candidates who has always openly supported marriage equality.

[eastofeden]

[Cardiganwearer]

Sorry to disagree, but Obama has also sworn to uphold the Constitution and a court has ruled that DADT is against the Constitution, so by the same logic he is also duty bound not to appeal the ruling. As far as I am aware the he is not legally bound to appeal. He may be politically obliged to appeal, he may also feel it sets a bad precedent for a mere District Court to effectively strike own an act of Congress in its entirety, but that is for him to choose.

No need to apologise, I can argue all day about the constitution of another country and it's gratifying to a newcomer to have someone read my stuff and engage me in debate.

He is legally bound to appeal because the law has not changed, the bill has not passed both houses.
He is obliged to appeal because a district court does not have the authority of the supremes (Stop! in the name of love) who have the ultimate authority to declare something unconstitutional and force a law down. If he doesn't appeal the situation doesn't get resolved, district court ruling notwithstanding. It has to go to the Supreme Court to get the final stamp of unconstitutionality.

Usual caveats, I'm not a lawyer and I'm no stranger to that exquisite sensation of being completely wrong.

[fredv3b]

Are you saying that the District Court erred in it's jurisdiction or powers when it issued it's injunction? If so then you're first person I've heard make that claim. If not then I am afraid I don't follow your argument as to why Obama is bound to appeal.