Tag Archives: DADT

October 11, 2009

Blogblah

Blogblah


Harry Truman integrated the armed forces with a stroke of the pen and Obama could do the same for gays in the military. Instead, he gave his 2007 campaign speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner last night, once more promising he would do something great, but just not now, just not yet, wait some more.
The fierce urgency of the end of my projected second term, you might say.

* * *
In a column in today’s New York Times, Frank Rich writes about a topic that’s been really bothering me lately: why the hell are the discredited neocons — who have been consistently wrong for more than a decade about everything foreign policy — still on the Sunday talk shows?
When does Stephanopolous look William Kristol right in the eye and say: is this like when you said the Iraq war would be over in 6 weeks? Is this the same as when you told us we’d be greeted as liberators in Baghdad? Is there any part of the “robust” assertion of American military power you advocate that has actually succeeded in doing good for us?
And, yes, I would include Sen. McCain, who has a foreign policy that is based on nationalistic fighter pilot chutzpah and not any serious and in-depth study of global issues, and who, I will remind you, lost the presidential elections rather badly.
They aren’t foreign policy experts, they just play one on TV. Continue reading

June 13, 2009

Blogblah

Blogblah

On the DOJ’s gay-hostile brief filed in a Defense of Marriage Act case, Andrew Sullivan and his readers/cohorts seem baffled. What was Obama Thinking? Is it a Bush-era holdover brief? Is he playing some game with eliminating “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
I want to suggest an alternative to those I’ve read. When I look at the brief and it’s very nearly absurdist anti-gay arguments, I’m thinking this is one big softball for some court to create a new 14th Amendment gay equality right.
I don’t deny that the arguments are offensive to many gay people, especially in their use of vivid language. However, as legal reasonng, they are a hoot and a knee slapper. Nevertheless, they also state the legislative record behind the statute, IIRC the Senate “debates.” Remember the now-gone GOP senators who voted for the beast?
Not even a conservative court would have an easy time accepting these arguments. At the least, these arguments will be judicially rejected in whatever decision comes from the Courts. In the case, I think this one is headed for the 9th Circuit, the most unpredictably left wing of those appeals courts. These arguments are tailor made to a response of “disparate treatment” under the 5th and 14th Amendments. A refusal of a right of marriage sounds also to me like one of the “badges” of slavery, which would be an interesting argument to make. (Cf. Lawrence, Loving)
Obama wouldn’t be the first president to hide behind the courts, oh so reluctantly as it will turn out.
Blogblah