• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House approves repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'(edited)

Re: DADT repeal still has a shot!

No, it goes beyond “the role of the judicial system” because, as I noted, the Gov and AG refused to represent the will of the people.

Here’s where you explain that with some “liberal logic”

The governor of California is a Republican. YOU elected HIM, instead of backing a more Conservative candidate, such as Tom McClintock, who could also have beaten Davis. Don't blame the governor. Blame yourself for supporting him instead of any of the Conservative candidates in that race. Bottom line is you got what you wished for.
 
Kelzie, what he is referring to is the prop 8 ruling in CA. The initial ruling was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Arnie and the AG refused to be part of the repeal, which may cause the prop 8 backers to not have standing to file the repeal. It's the subject of another court case now.
 
Kelzie, what he is referring to is the prop 8 ruling in CA. The initial ruling was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Arnie and the AG refused to be part of the repeal, which may cause the prop 8 backers to not have standing to file the repeal. It's the subject of another court case now.

I thought they didn't have standing because they weren't affected by the ruling or some such legal jargon.
 
I thought they didn't have standing because they weren't affected by the ruling or some such legal jargon.

I have not checked up on it lately, not sure.
 
Kelzie, what he is referring to is the prop 8 ruling in CA. The initial ruling was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Arnie and the AG refused to be part of the repeal, which may cause the prop 8 backers to not have standing to file the repeal. It's the subject of another court case now.

Thank you Redress, you have earned my respect.
 
I thought they didn't have standing because they weren't affected by the ruling or some such legal jargon.

They didn't have standing because Brown refused to represent the voters. In other words, California had an election but refused to be a party to the defence of said election.
 
They didn't have standing because Brown refused to represent the voters. In other words, California had an election but refused to be a party to the defence of said election.

That is a legal question though, and I am the first to admit I don't know legal stuff. Last I heard, the prop 8 backers would probably have standing.

This is getting off topic...
 
They didn't have standing because Brown refused to represent the voters. In other words, California had an election but refused to be a party to the defence of said election.

Very interesting. Well aside from if Brown is legally or morally obligated to defend Prop 8, the judge was still doing his job.
 
That is a legal question though, and I am the first to admit I don't know legal stuff. Last I heard, the prop 8 backers would probably have standing.

This is getting off topic...

*sigh* It was so much easier back when we could let the topic creep.
 
*sigh* It was so much easier back when we could let the topic creep.

We can some. I just pointed it out. It's not bad yet. No mod box or anything...
 
We can some. I just pointed it out. It's not bad yet. No mod box or anything...

:lol: I turned a thread about Michelle Obama's child nutrition program into one about alternative energies. Apparently that is too much.

We need Navy to come back. He's always willing to talk about DADT.
 
Very interesting. Well aside from if Brown is legally or morally obligated to defend Prop 8, the judge was still doing his job.

*sigh* It was so much easier back when we could let the topic creep.

We can some. I just pointed it out. It's not bad yet. No mod box or anything...

:lol: I turned a thread about Michelle Obama's child nutrition program into one about alternative energies. Apparently that is too much.

We need Navy to come back. He's always willing to talk about DADT.

You can have the last word on the prop 8 issue.
 
Nah you can have it. I haven't decided where I stand on what Brown's doing yet.

I worked my way through the entire ruling for the discussion on it. The judges logic in his ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional seemed fairly sound to me.
 
It isn't about "conservative logic". DADT will be a disaster for our military because it further socializes one of the few bastions of unadulterated “do your job and do it well” government institutions.

The discrimination lawsuits that will follow and the money the military will now need to spend on legal defense against guys who want to get breast implants, bunk with women, complain about being discriminated against etc.

The military isn’t a social arm of America, it’s all about soldiers. Soldiers, since the beginning of organized armies, have always been forced to lose their personal identities.
 
I worked my way through the entire ruling for the discussion on it. The judges logic in his ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional seemed fairly sound to me.

I take back the respect you gained. I was mistaken. You really are a dirt bag after all aren't you?
 
I worked my way through the entire ruling for the discussion on it. The judges logic in his ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional seemed fairly sound to me.

Indeed, however apparently they might not get to the 9th district because the State wasn't involved. Not sure how I feel about it yet. I mean obviously it's a law I oppose, but he is an elected official...eh, jury's still out. (hee hee, punny)
 
It isn't about "conservative logic". DADT will be a disaster for our military because it further socializes one of the few bastions of unadulterated “do your job and do it well” government institutions.

The discrimination lawsuits that will follow and the money the military will now need to spend on legal defense against guys who want to get breast implants, bunk with women, complain about being discriminated against etc.

The military isn’t a social arm of America, it’s all about soldiers. Soldiers, since the beginning of organized armies, have always been forced to lose their personal identities.

Ooo, disaster is a strong word.

The military does indeed have a job to do, and I am the first person who will say that if a person's sexuality is getting in the way of their performance, they don't belong in the military. However, it's not unreasonable to allow soldiers to have their family as their support base. And soldiers do talk about their families/girlfriends/weekend hookups as a way of bonding with each other. I think it's unreasonable to not allow gay soliders to have the same support.
 
I take back the respect you gained. I was mistaken. You really are a dirt bag after all aren't you?

The dirtiest.

Kelzie, we are talking about you in DP chat.:2razz:
 
It isn't about "conservative logic". DADT will be a disaster for our military because it further socializes one of the few bastions of unadulterated “do your job and do it well” government institutions.

The discrimination lawsuits that will follow and the money the military will now need to spend on legal defense against guys who want to get breast implants, bunk with women, complain about being discriminated against etc.

The military isn’t a social arm of America, it’s all about soldiers. Soldiers, since the beginning of organized armies, have always been forced to lose their personal identities.

The policy itself is discriminatory. The policy itself prevents the military from just being about "do your job". Those gay personnel in the military still have to fear discharge for their sexuality even if they are doing their job but want to do some of the same things that heterosexual are allowed to do, such as get married, publicly acknowledge that they like a certain gender of people, and/or bring their significant other to military functions and actually be able to claim that person as their significant other.
 
Back
Top Bottom