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
Mmmm, Ben, re-read my post i was DISAGREEING with the trial judge in Loving. So did the SCOTUS, that’s why it was OVERTURNED. (hands Ben a Government 101 textbook).
“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 didn’t say that “if it’s not in the Constitution you can’t do it.”
But our God-given rights are spelled out in the Constitution. I can clearly show you where my right to free speech exists, my right to peaceably assemble, my right to trial by jury, my right to bear arms.
Now, you show me where it says that you have any of the aforementioned rights. Where are they, Insipid? Because if you can’t find them, then they aren’t rights. And if they aren’t rights, then no one’s rights are being denied and this is not a civil rights issue.
“But we just want the same rights as everybody else!’
YOU HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYBODY ELSE. Go ahead an peaceably assemble, speak your mind, bear arms, and all that shit. But your conception of your rights is incorrect.
@49 Not to stray off the topic too much, but most modern country isn’t country at all, it’s rehashed 80?s bubblegum pop.
So true! Wow! A new Gay-Straight Alliance right here on TAH. Who’d of thunk?
“Thank you for the “I know you are, but what am I” comeback.”
No, I looked up one of your favorite words just to show you that it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
It’s every homosexual activist’s favorite word and they don’t even know it’s definition. A bigot is someone who is so fanatically committed to his own point of view that they became wholly intolerant of anyone else’s.
I have yet to see a gay couple procreate without the use of a third persons genetic material that differs from their own unless you know some that can asexually reproduce. If so then I suppose those people should have equal rights like the straight couples.
@Ben
You’re basically arguing strict v. loose construction of the Constitution. I disagree with the entire notion that we don’t have a right to something if it’s not written expressly in the constitution. It doesn’t say we have the right to life in the constitution, but I think you’d agree it would certainly violate someone fundamental rights if we passed a law saying we can kill anyone under 5’4″.
Insipid all these bigots just really hate homosexuals but they don’t want to come out and say it publicly
I don’t hate homosexuals…in fact, some of my best friends have their hair done by homosexuals.
@Ben, I know the definition, you fit it and I don’t. The better way of dealing with it is by stopping your bigoted behavior, not simply with idiotic “I know you are but what am i” comebacks.
Correction to the above, it does mention Life in the Constitution, saying we can’t be deprived of it without due process in the 5th amendment. But it doesn’t list it as fundamental rights.
@Ben If you don’t find marriage a fundamental right, does that mean that you think the Trial court was correct in Loving?
Personally, I don’t believe in legal marriages at all. You get married in a church. How about a civil contract between two individuals. The one thing I do agree with my dad on is this issue and that is because why is it that gay people get away with not knowing the joy of a divorce?
You also know out there is a guy (or a girl) using this as an excuse to not get married. Scene couple living happily in their house having a romantic meal when one brings up the “issue”…
“Ah baby, you know I love you, but…you know them nasty bigots keeping us from getting married.”
“Did you hear we can get married now.”
“Say what?” Shit…”you know I’ve been thinking and Its me not you…”
@Insipid if you know the definition of the word then you should be well aware of how much you fit the definition.
Course there is the other syndrome that you have and it’s called “headinass”. If this was really about being able to serve the country openly gay then it would have been done with after the repeal. Instead it just opened Pandora’s Box.
@Ben
Here’s Alexander Hamilton arguing AGAINST the Bill of Rights: the reason? He was afraid that people like you would argue what you’re aruing:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
Of course, those in favor or it did not argue that rights should be limited, as you are arguing, merely that no one would ever do that.
Insipid, I stand by my previous assessment of you being an attention whore. You come here only because you are an ugly mother fucker and this is the only way you get any attention from men. You imagine that because quite a few of the guys who come to this page are either previous military or current military that we are all in pretty good shape. Sorry, I am pretty much out of shape and I am straight. Although I am flattered by the attention you show all of us not interested.
You do realize Jason that insults are supposed to make me feel bad, not make me have Dr. Pepper go up my nose from laughing?
How is that an insult? You said you were gay, you spend a lot of time here arguing with people you obviously don’t like. I was just guessing that you were trying to pick up a guy…color me surprised.
well can’t say it wasn’t called.
@Course there is the other syndrome that you have and it’s called “headinass”. If this was really about being able to serve the country openly gay then it would have been done with after the repeal. Instead it just opened Pandora’s Box.
Brown v Topeka also opened a Pandora’s Box. And you’re right, gays will not stop until they have equal rights anywhere and everywhere. Neither did Thurgood Marshal or those who struggled after him. When you agree to give up your rights then i’ll stop fighting for mine.
@insipid- I think that it’s fucked up that some states won’t recognize gay marriage. A partner should be able to make the decision to pull a life support plug, care for dependents, or reap bennies that their partner may have earned. However, people are using the military as a fulcrum to pry the federal government into getting national legislation passed, instead of arguing to individual state courts, or making a stand-alone case to the feds. That is insulting to a great many of us. I cringed when I saw that DADT was going to be repealed, because I knew it wasn’t an endgame, it was a foot in the door for people to settle matters that don’t concern the scope of the military’s function at all, and it would distract from the real issues concerning the military at this time- fighting the two (three) wars we’re involved in.
You lefties sure do love to do it, though. It’s the same reason why the anti-war movement appeared in ’02 and disappeared in January ’09, or why Charlie Rangel brought up legislation to reinstate the draft back in ’04, just in time for the elections.
I would like to see gay marriage accepted everywhere, but I say to you here and now: Go fuck yourself, you pretentious twat. Sort out the civilian side of it first, so the military conforms to the civvie example.
@How is that an insult? You said you were gay, you spend a lot of time here arguing with people you obviously don’t like. I was just guessing that you were trying to pick up a guy…color me surprised.
Yeah, and you’re arguing with the one openly gay guy here because you secretly want me. See? Not an insult, just a belief i pulled out of nowhere with no factual basis to back it up.
I argue here to waste time, because the idiocy of right wingers and their philosophy amuses me. Because i’d rather do this than watch TV. But if you really think that i find right wingers hot, then go right ahead. Seems like projection.
Why do you guys keep saying we’re involved in three wars? I think Libya just ended pretty dramatically. And we’re scheduled to be out of Iraq in December (not that there’s been much “fighting” the past year anyway). Don’t any of you read newspapers?
@Teddy The desegregation of the Army was certainly used as an argument to desegregate schools and other social institutions. If you think gay marriage should be allowed, i’m not sure why the repeal of DADT should be off limits as an argument.
What! Insipid is gay? What a shocker! Whoddathunkit. Well, insipid lassie, many guys here don’t mind that but I sure do. That is some sick stuff. Guess I wasn’t off the mark with the Ballduster wank stuff. So, tell me, do you squeal like a stuck pig when Bubby delivers or do you take it like a sheman?
It’s fairly obvious that you have no idea how our military functions. Our ships will be off the coast of Libya for some time to come, and our “troops” will be out of Iraq by december, but logistics and supply trains will still be around for long after that. So will personnel who aren’t classified as “troops” on paper, but rather as “advisors”.
I just called it how I saw it and I kindly responded with a no. You are the one that took offense. I thought you might have been more offended with the fact that I called you an ugly mother fucker than anything.
>@Ben If you don’t find marriage a fundamental right, does that mean that you think the Trial court was correct in Loving
Homosexuals use the Loving case as a bludgeon until OOPS they find out the same SCOTUS dismissed on the merits for want of federal question Baker v. Nelson making it federal PRECEDENT… Go look up Baker v. Nelson…It said that states could make the choice.
“The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation”
“Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Guess you will have to find ANOTHER case as your pet citation…
@teddy, perhaps, but we have troops in dozens of countries all over the world. No one thinks we’re still at war with Germany or Korea. The fair definition is whether or not there’s actual fighting going on, not whether or not we have troops or advisors there
@insipid- because unlike skin color, marriage is a made-up, intangible thing, and it is largely a state law issue. Take it up with the states themselves. Then send your state representatives to DC with the agenda to change federal law. That’s how things are supposed to function in this country.
Instead, as all lefties do, you want to attempt to have the feds tell the states what their laws should and should not read, bypassing the most democratic element of our society. And you want to do that by leveraging our military while it’s involved in combat. That irks me to no end.
@Melle, refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on the merits. The vast majority of appeals are not taken,
@77- We ARE still at war with Korea, by the way. There is a ceasefire in place. There was no peace treaty signed.
@72- When DADT was repealed, we were involved in three wars, one laughably labeled a “kinetic military action”. The sympathy for veterans generated by overseas operations aided the civilian push for the repeal greatly.
By the way, Melle, you weren’t quoting SCOTUS but the SC of Minnessota.
@ Except Instupid it was considered on the merits.. Look up the damn case– It was a mandatory review.
You are ignorant and argue just to argue.. If they didn’t take the case and dismissed it on the merit…. The case became precedent. So the opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court stood. It was valid, and the dismissal by SCOTUS validated.
Insipid, how’s about Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda? Not to mention the war still going on in Korea. Those are just a few, right off the top. Pick up a newspaper.
I did. I confess that i didn’t notice that it was not dismissed certiori. However a one sentence unreasoned rejection stating that there is no SUBSTANTIAL federal question is hardly very strong precedent.
Mind you, this was well before Lawrence v. Texas, where SCOTUS held that there was a constitutional liberty interest in same-sex intimate relations. For all we know, Baker v. Nelson was decided on grounds that Lawrence overruled (as many gay-themed decisions of that era were — after all, if gay relations were a crime, of course there was no ground to complain about being discriminated against on the basis of one’s status as a criminal). To say that Baker is “binding precedent” and settles this issue post-Lawrence is therefore not convincing in the least.
@42: “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”
Are you sure? In my biology class, it wasn’t taught that way. That happened after I graduated, where the agenda driven study was done to try and bring homosexuality into the mainstream. In nature, it’s all about reproduction to further the species. If there is an occasional animal, or member of a species, that is “homosexual”, then that gene pool dies with that particular example. What part of that don’t you get?
I will offer you $50,000 if you can take your same sex partner into a room and procreate. You can’t because it isn’t natural, you have to have one part from each gender of the species. Just like in nature, so nice try in attempting to throw out the “it’s natural because theirs buggery in every species in nature” as proof.
Now, in reference to your SC ruling; please explain what I asked of you. Don’t try to hide behind some bullshit argument that I just didn’t like the answer; I asked you a question pertaining to that ruling that you used to justify your case.
I shudder to think what passes for education in whatever shitpit Old Trooper crawled out from. I know you won’t read this, and I know that you will say “oh well that’s just wikipedia”, but I’ll post it anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Baker is still precedent until SCOTUS revisits it..
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243268/prop-8-proponents-motion-ninth-circuit-stay-i-baker-v-nelson-i-ed-whelan
Lawrence v. Texas did nothing to change Baker as Kennedy even wrote in his opinion that it was strictly about consensual PRIVATE sexual relationships and did not confer any special protections to the couple.
BTW, your whole gay biology is skewed by politics. Gay animals is a new “phenomenon” used to make gay people feel better about themselves. Even the zoologist and biologist who subscribe to the gay animal theory admit that these animals find a heterosexual partner when it comes time to reproduce.see penguins and the Laysan Albatross who leave their “partners” for a normal partnership to have babies.
THe problem with these studies is that they are skewed with a political agenda and aren’t really science, but results sometimes can’t be hidden…
King you stupid fuckstick, did you even bother to read what I posted? Pull your fucking head out of your ass, numbnuts, and go back to reading comprehension ya fucking moron.
Also, king, I shudder to think what you pass off as education in your fucked up world.
Gay animals? Look, the guy sticks his pecker in another man’s butt, mouth, or both. What the hell is there to talk about after that?
Yes, but summary dismissals, though decisions on the merits, are controlling only in cases involving identical facts. Today, intimate relationships between gays is no longer illegal, furthermore there have been many cases since regarding gay rights.
Baker WAS considered in Perry v Schwarzenegger and it was not found to be precedent.
Well I can tell you that I graduated from one of the top high schools in the US, and as for college let’s just say Cum Laude isn’t just something I’d make your daughters do if I got my hands on them.
I’m pretty sure I understood your point just fine. You’re basically saying that all that gay animal stuff is just a gay conspiracy to gain acceptance in society. Well I linked you that page so you could check each of the links and inform me about how so many different people are actually secretly part of a big gay cabal that wants to force your daughters to eat each other out. You’re an absolute fucking moron.
And I know that any mention of college is going to bring about that nuge quote you like to bandy about. I’m just curious, if the Nuge didn’t go to college, why did he seek a student draft deferment?
Enjoy, fuckface: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/26/proof_ted_nugent_is_a_draft_dodger_will_hannity_keep_defending_him.php
A remf worshipping a draft dodger, what arre the odds?
Well, Lawrence had to influence Baker somewhat in that intimate relationships between gays aren’t illegal anymore. Furthermore, even the SC has seen one sentence dismissals like this one as having less clout.
Hell, I agree with the ruling in 1972. There wasn’t one state that allowed gay marriage then, intimate relations were still illegal in most states, and Psychology, back then viewed homosexuality as an aberrent condition. So yeah, back then there wasn’t a substantial federal question. Now one exists.
>Baker WAS considered in Perry v Schwarzenegger and it was not found to be precedent.
And YOU who argued up and down Bush v. Gore that judges could be wrong should know that they could. FOUR other district courts have held Baker v. Nelson as precedent. Walker is the ONLY judge to throw Baker out as not being precedent and he is wrong. Baker v. Nelson has to be addressed by SCOTUS before it is thrown out as precedent.
@93 – ” and as for college let’s just say Cum Laude isn’t just something I’d make your daughters do if I got my hands on them.”
And we’ve again proven that proponents of a given position can often have no worse enemies than themselves.
Thanks.
@Melle Pretty much all science that doesn’t agree with the conservative agenda, from evolution, to global warming to gay rights is always dismissed as “biased”.
@Melle- though i do disagree with you, i do really appreciate the fact that you’ve been really very civil in your last few posts. I’m sure you’ll call me instupid again soon, but i will say i appreciate it while it lasts.
>Well, Lawrence had to influence Baker somewhat
No it didn’t.. SCOTUS has said there is NO federal question as far as gay marriage goes. Kennedy reiterated that in Lawrence when he said that Lawrence ruling offered no special protections other than no reprecussion to a consensual private sexual relationship. Until SCOTUS addresses the FEDERAL question of gay marriage again…. Baker v. Nelson holds.. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but that is the fact unless SCOTUS takes a gay marriage case.
@Melle, absolutely judges can be wrong (i assume you’ll agree with that) but i looked at Walker’s reasoning and found it valid. But you’re right and it will probably wind up in the SC. I hope the voters overturn prop 8 before that