The special rights crowd files a law suit
Yeah, they just wanted to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell so they could serve, because service was the most importnt thing to them (Stars & Stripes link);
A group of eight gay servicemembers sued the federal government Thursday for military and veterans benefits for their same-sex spouses, arguing that ignoring their marriages amounts to discrimination.
The move comes a little more than a month after the end of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which for 18 years prohibited gay troops from publicly acknowledging their sexual orientation.
I guess there no potential for abuse of the system if they get their way, right?
“This case is about one thing … justice for gay and lesbian servicemembers and their families,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Oh, so it’s not about service…it’s about justice now, huh? And by justice they mean fairness. Or ramming a deviant lifestyle down the collective throat of the military.
Category: Military issues
Some of us could say, “We told you so!”
You are a true bigot lilyea
Yeah, first a black man gets all uppity and starts thinking he can be the President and now gays want the same rights every other member of the service has.
Also can you MAYBE try to mention gays without using the “Cram down your throat” metaphor. It sounds like you’re engaging in wishful thinking.
“…and now gays want the same rights every other member of the service has.”
Who has the “right” to anything in the service? No one has the “right” to marriage or family housing.
If you want to go down that road, I’ll go with you. Yes, homosexuals have the EXACT SAME “right” as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex and move into family housing.
The point is that everyone knew that this was the beginning of a saga, not the end. The repeal of DADT settled absolutely nothing. And now there are lawsuits. Expect more to come.
By the way, I thought military members couldn’t sue the military? Is that still the rule?
“It sounds like you’re engaging in wishful thinking.”
Oh yeah. The old “you’re a repressed homosexual” routine. Lame, dude. Lame.
Here’s a funny thought I just had.
I remember when gay “marriage” came to my state, one of the thoughtful, nuanced arguments in favor off it was “Why are we even talking about this? We’re in the middle of two wars and you’re worried about two guys getting hitched?”
Apparently, even talking about gay “marriage” was detracting from the war effort. You know, the war they were actively trying to lose. So let’s just not talk about it, m’kay? You can’t talk about these things in wartime.
So here’s my question. Why is it that the military has time for these shenanigans in the middle of THREE wars? We’re fighting in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan and these people are suing because they can’t get their “husbands” into family housing?
Well, you’re right about one thing: it will not end here. Just as the fight for racial equality did not end when the slaves were freed; did not end with Brown v. Board; did not end with the 1964 or 1967 civil rights act and did not end with the election of our first black President; this will not end.
It will not end until GLBT have the right to marry who they want in every state, it will not end until it is illegal to fire someone just for being gay in every state, it will not end until we have the same rights every straight person has. It will not end until diatribes like yours above is seen as just as barbaric as Wallace’s “Segregation Now” speech.
Im not married so can I have the same rights and get married benefits and housing like everyone else. You are discriminating against me I’m gonna sue.
That argument sounds just as dumb as the one in Stars and Stripes article
The nice thing about this place is that when one is not in the mood to play or to tolerate butt wipes such as insipid or that chick, one can just come right out and say so. Whatever entertainment value the nasty O girl had is spent. As for the thing, insipid, it’s just a chunk of dried puke.
You know, whatever two people want to do behind closed doors, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, or is completely illegal, go for it. Just don’t expect me support what ever “rights” you think you are entitled to. Especially when it comes to military service. No one put a gun to your head and said time to sign up. Just like no one put a gun to your head and said start sucking d@#$! Last I checked the UCMJ still made sodomy illegal, and therefor a punishable offense.
@5 Oh yeah. The old “you’re a repressed homosexual” routine. Lame, dude. Lame.
No, not really all that lame. The fact is that there’s an awful lot of anti gay representatives and clergy doing VERY gay things. There was a Mayor caught just a week ago trolling on Rentboy. I won’t say that’s the case with every bigot, but there’s an awful lot of them that none of you can deny.
Hey, insipid, I understand you wipe your nose and your butt with the same piece of tissue. My question is which one do you wipe first?
Oh, you’re comparing me to a segregationist. And now we know you’re out of ammo and grasping for straws.
Don’t tell me that you think people should be able to marry “anyone they want”. You have your pet restrictions too. It’s just a question of WHAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS WILL BE. You don’t think that a person should be allowed to marry a blood relative, a child, or someone who is already married. Sure, those restrictions make sense to me too but they don’t make sense to people who want to engage in those kind of marriages.
By the way, two blood relatives can get married in my state, just as long as the “marriage” is homosexual in nature. That’s right. Two brothers can go get “married” and my sick state will put their seal of approval on it.
And then they can sue the military for not giving them housing.
@211
Once again, straight peoples obsession with gay sex. Not much different then the old mesegenation line bigots of Dixie used against slavery. They also liked to express in graphic detail black bucks deflowering white virgins.
I’m sorry, but a whole group of people shouldn’t have to subjugate their rights just because you find gay sex icky.
Yeah, and an awful lot of homosexuals have crushes on their “homophobic” rivals.
Nice name. You are pretty insipid.
Insipid: Can you possibly be as stupid as you sound? Have you no clue? Where are you, in a home for wayward gay and transgender teens? Go look at at a picture of Ballduster and play with yourself.
Insipid–please find in the Constitution:
1) the right to marriage
2) the right to marry anyone you want
3) the right to join the military
4) the right to military family housing.
Until you can find any of those things, they aren’t rights.
Oh yeah, and I’m going to let you in on a secret. Buttfucking is not equivalent to having black skin.Your comparison is stupid–insipid, you might say. One is a sexually deviant behavior, the other is the color skin you were assigned at birth. See the difference now?
@11: “I won’t say that’s the case with every bigot, but there’s an awful lot of them that none of you can deny.”
So; anyone that doesn’t agree with you or your lifestyle is a bigot? Doesn’t that make you intolerant? And, in that same conversation, if you claim someone is intolerant for not agreeing with your lifestyle; aren’t you also just as intolerant for not agreeing with theirs?
I love this deep thought thinking philosophy shit.
Old trooper:
Yeah, Insipid is a deep thinker. She and CI can team up and discuss the many similarities between sodomy and skin color.
Whatever you do, DON’T CALL THEM LIBERALS!
It occurs to me that with all of the pansies in the SVA contest, that just may be flies to shit for clowns like insipid. Maybe they are here to look at the pix and play with themselves.
Funny blog about the end of DADT.
I guess the point trying to be made is that they can’t tell us anymore with a straight face that people should butt out of their bedrooms when in fact they can’t shut the hell up about it.
http://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/gay-military-members-to-discuss-deeply-personal-matter-with-entire-world/
You misunderstand me Ben. I’m not comparing you to a segregationist, i’m saying you ARE a segregationist, as well as a bigot. The fact that you would trot out the tired it’s just like Pedophelia or beastiality line proves that. Yes, the same “arguments” were raised by sick people about interacial marriages and they were just as stupid then.
Homosexuality is not considered a sexual orientation by medicine, homosexuality is. An animal or child cannot give consent, an adult homosexual can. The rules against incest have mostly to do with birth defects of offspring. So far in places where gay marriage is illegal, there has been no influx of anyone demanding rights to marry siblings or children or ducks so the whole slippery slope argument is a pure bullshit distraction. And as a bonus a nice way to compare homosexuality to beasitiality.
Correction to the second paragraph. I meant to say Beastiality is not considered a sexual orientation by modern…
@Whatever you do, DON’T CALL THEM LIBERALS!
I’m not sure what the fuck you’re talking about. I call myself Liberal all the time. I am one. I’m proud of it. In fact i’ve done it a number of times on this blog.
Insipid: Did you use the same tissue you wipe your nose and butt with to clean yourself after viewing Ballduster’s picture? You little twit.
Hey! OG and insipid on the same page!
Welcome back!
Got your union card insipid?
So, to recap:
The Repeal of DADTDP achieved its goals of undermining GOProud and re-opening the GayTM. But the elections are so far away – how to keep the GayTM open?
I know! Let’s start with a wedge issue to repeal DOMA !!! And where can that wedge be inserted?
Why – our US Mililtary, of course!
So instead of debating the issue, an insipid troll hijacks the thread with her/his usual bigoted, hateful attacks.
I don’t think they should any more rights than a single person. They can move into the privatized base housing area, but only as a single individual and they have at least another military roommate.
You have pissed me off, insipid, and I thoroughly enjoy the fact that your stupidity is self broadcast, you snot-faced, ignoramous.
@24 – What he’s referring to, is that if you disagree with the groupthink on this issue….you’re a liberal.
A group of eight service-members represents the whole as much as eight people of any group represent it’s whole.
A simple fix that everyone would seem to support [since marriage is not a right], is to ban marriage for all service-members.
Problem solved.
CI and insipid; what is the purpose for marriage, any marriage? So there can be the nuclear family? So the species can procreate? What is the purpose of marriage?
For those other than the O chick and ispipid: A group of Muslims has filed suit claiming their human rights are being violated by a university that has a crucifix on each room’s wall where they pray five times daily. This they finf intolerable. The university? Catholic University. Is that rich or what?
@Ben: Insipid–please find in the Constitution: 1) the right to marriage 2) the right to marry anyone you want 3) the right to join the military 4) the right to military family housing. Until you can find any of those things, they aren’t rights. Oh yeah, and I’m going to let you in on a secret. Buttfucking is not equivalent to having black skin.Your comparison is stupid–insipid, you might say. One is a sexually deviant behavior, the other is the color skin you were assigned at birth. See the difference now? ———————————————————– First off, medicine and zoology does not consider homosexuality “deviant” so you’re just wrong there. Secondly, the Constitution is not your personal Binky that you own and no one else gets to play with. The fact is that ALL of those things can, and HAVE been argued successfully as falling under the categories of establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, and insuring the blessings of liberty. Here’s what the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia said about interracial marriage: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Sounds about as “sciency” as what you all are putting out. Here’s what SC Justice Stewart said in his concurring opinion overturning the ban on interacial marriage in the same case: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person… Read more »
@30 – It’s difficult to agree on a legal definition isn’t it? For many, it’s to have a family…..for others it’s to share your life with a partner. We’ve moved beyond the era where procreation was absolutely necessary for survival of the social group or the passing of lineage, property and business.
If gay marriage is a distraction to military service and a drain on defense spending, how is straight marriage any different? Aside from alcohol, every one of my leadership problems stemmed from marriage in some way.
All right, Insipid. Here goes.
If you noticed, I never said a damned thing about bestiality. Your entire repartee against the bestiality comparison was made against the the little man who lives in your head. You brought that up, not me.
And of course bestiality isn’t a sexual orientation. It’s a sexual behavior, just like homosexuality. The orientation is when people are ATTRACTED to animals. And they must be born that way, because who would choose to live in a society that hates and shuns you for your love? Ergo, it’s genetic and not really their fault.
Definition of bigot, according to Merriam-Wesbter: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
That’s you, insipid. You’re a bigot. Interestingly, this is the example that Merriam-Webster uses to demonstrate the usage of the word bigotry:
“a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments.”
You again.
And as I noticed, you failed to identify even one of the four non-existent rights in the Constitution. And the reason you can’t is because they’re not rights.
“The rules against incest have mostly to do with birth defects of offspring.” Right. And that’s why two brothers can get married in my state, but interestingly enough not a man to his post-menopausal mother. Even if they’re soooooo in love! And they couldn’t get military housing either.
So let me try to break this down to you as simply as I can. I understand all of that stuff about consenting adults and all of that. My point is that no one is free until they can marry whomever they want. You don’t want that. You want restrictions in place too. You just want the restrictions that make sense to YOU. And all of the restrictions that make sense to you make sense to me as well, plus one more. And that’s really what we’re arguing about.
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
How is gay marriage fundamental to our existence or survival?
@30 CI and insipid; what is the purpose for marriage, any marriage? So there can be the nuclear family? So the species can procreate? What is the purpose of marriage?
First off i deny that this is the sole purpose of marriage. But since you all LOVE the slippery slope arguement so much, should we ban sterile people from getting married? Women over 50? Or make people sign agreements that they WILL have children before they get married? Should we make Leno divorce his wive of 30 something years simply because they choose not to have kids? Also there are a number of gay parents out there.
How is gay marriage fundamental to our existence or survival?
In the same way it is to straights, it provides legal protections, it provides a family unit and structure, it provides economic security. People procreated before marriage, you know.
insipid is using a technique of argument called “Whipsaw.”
It’s a Saul Alinsky special.
The Whipsaw is holding extreme positions on each side of the argument.
insipid claims to be more moral than any of us because of his support of a thing (gay marriage) that many readers and commentators here view as immoral. Essentially: it is morally correct to support immorality.
No clue or facts are required to Whipsaw.
The result is to anger the opponent into making a mistake, like reporting insipid to his mother.
Hey insipid, you dipshit, I asked a valid question and you are refusing to answer it by asking a bunch of your own. At least CI made a lucid discussion point out of it; you don’t even try, because you have no fucking clue.
I love this nugget “Also there are a number of gay parents out there.”
Really? How did those children come into being? I defy you, insipid, to take your same sex partner and go into a closet and make a baby. Call me when you accomplish that. Also, if you had ever attended biology class, you would know that men and women are equipped the way they are for one purpose; to procreate. Just like in nature, I want you to show me where two mamals of the same sex can procreate. It wasn’t meant to be that way. That Jay Leno and his wife chose not to have children is up to them, but if they wanted to, they were sporting the proper equipment to do so. You and your same sex partner are not. Try plugging two electrical cords together using the same ends. Get back to me with how that experiment works out for ya.
I don’t want to hear the old saw that “it’s genetic” and all that other crappola, because you then have to explain the bi-sexual crowd.
I really don’t give a rats ass who you go to bed with, but, as was noted long before now, we knew that “just serving” wasn’t going to be the end of any of it, but rather the beginning, because lying has always been part of the game with your group.
@Ben
Thank you for the “I know you are, but what am I” comeback. I think i need to buy a new stupid meter, you broke mine. I am not the one arguing against taking away the rights of others. You are. I am not the one calling other people deviant, you are. I am not the bigot, you are.
Lots of things aren’t in the Constitution, the constitution was meant to be an exanding document, the whole argument that “if it’s not in the Constitution” we can’t do it, was shot down 200 years ago. I could counter with the fact that the word “handguns” is not in the constitution either, but suffice to say that even Scalia wouldn’t agree with you there. If Congress can pass laws on something then it’s Constitutional until the SC says it isn’t. That’s the way it’s worked for 200 years.
“In the same way it is to straights, it provides legal protections, it provides a family unit and structure, it provides economic security.”
I’ve been saying for years this was the heart of the gay marriage argument: money.
It’s the same reason silly-assed E-1’s get married to chicks they’ve known for 48 hours, it’s all about the benefits. Free medical, housing, BAH with dependents. Have I thought about marrying some chick in the past for those reasons? Hell, yeah it crossed my mind when I was a junior enlisted. Add to all that is the potential income tax breaks. Eliminate all those benefits and you’d hear a lot less of the gay marraige/”social justice” argument (and a lot fewer junior personnel getting married at all). In the meantime, I’ll continue to pay the penalty of being single with no kids.
@old trooper, I did answer your question, i even quoted a SC case to do it If you don’t like the answer, that’s not my problem. I don’t know if you attended biology class, but if you were paying attention you’d note that homosexuality occurs in just about every species. Homophobia only occurs in one. So who here is acting unnatural?
This whole thing is gay.
Good points, Country Singer. Don’t really care for the music though.
How dare you call insipid intolerant Old Trooper you are one of the most intolerant people out there anyone who disagrees with you or Lilyea is a piece of shit in your eyes and if they were in the military their service doesn’t count.
What, not even k.d.lang?
“But since you all LOVE the slippery slope argument so much, should we ban sterile people from getting married?” Why don’t you allow blood relatives to get married if one of them is sterile? Why can’t a man marry his mother if one of them is sterile? Hmmm? And why the hell can’t we have group marriage? If all parties involved consent, what’s your problem? And shouldn’t that group marriage have the same rights to military housing? Do you know why I hate arguing with people like you, Insipid? It’s because you don’t really believe any of the crap that you say. You just say it as a means to an end. You follow your line of reasoning just as far as you need it to go to justify your own little perversion, and then FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE! It’s all about YOU. And as I expected, you can’t find any of those rights in the Constitution. That’s cause they’re not there and they’re not rights. Oh, the fundamental right to a marriage mentioned above was between a man and a woman. You’ve essentially changed the definition of the word since the time those words were spoken and now you want to go back and pretend that the judge meant the word “marriage” in the way that you mean it, not in the way that it meant in all times and all places before the 21st century. Notice that the judge said that it was essential to our survival. Because men and women can procreate together. In fact, he was making the argument–that you reject–that the purpose of marriage is to create children. And creating more children perpetuates the species which ensures that mankind will continue to exist. But according to you, that’s just crazy! Marriage is about LOVE and hospital vistitation rights and the good feeling you get from societal affirmation and other such nonsense. If this judge were here today he’d be on our side, not yours. I find it funny that you quote a judge who says that “almighty God” made the races. As if you would quote… Read more »
Well, yeah, but she hasn’t really been country in a while, i have her 49th parallel album it’s really good. And i do like Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson. Entirely coincidence that their first names are also euphemisms for penis. But most modern country I can’t stand.
@ Insipid all these bigots just really hate homosexuals but they don’t want to come out and say it publicly
Not to stray off the topic too much, but most modern country isn’t country at all, it’s rehashed 80’s bubblegum pop.