Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Actually to be honest, the Repeal of don't ask don't tell HURT gay rights.
Because on repeal the lawsuit got overturned for being "pointless" since the lawsuit was overturned.
If it was upheld (and i believe it would of been) it would of set a legal precedent that would of been a bedrock precedent in pretty much any gay discrimination lawsuit. |
I am not a big fan of grammar policing, but three 'would of's in one sentence?!?
On topic; I find your reasoning highly speculative.
|
How so?
|
Because you are saying overturning a policy that was clearly anti gay weakens gay rights because in a supposed alternate set of events, that you yourself say you believe would probably happen, would potentially set a stronger pro-gay presidence. As you see, this is comparing the known outcome of improving gay rights to a supposed outcome that potentially could be better for gays (in your opinion).
Not only is the legal precedent you talk about purely speculative, no one knows what the outcome would be, but saying that a situation that patently imporved gay rights acctually hurt the same rights because of a potential unknown outcome is very speculative reasoning. It would be similar to telling someone who just won $2000 betting on horses that they lost money because you believe they would have won $6000 playing the roulette.
In the off chance that you were asking about the 'would of' comment, it's called "would have" or alternatively "would've" where your butchering of the spelling originats from.
|
Except the outcome already happened.
The Log Cabin Republicans WON their court case. The legal precedent was already set, and then was later overturned only because Obama appealed and got rid of DADT before the appeal was heard.
Had he did neither of those things, precedent would of been set.
So no, it's more like saying someone would of won $6,000 had not someone else come in, took their winning sand dropped it down to $2000.
|
I guess it is bad form to bring up a thread over a week later, but this is too ridicolous to let stand.
You have no idea what precedence would be set if DADT had been left alone and the injunction had been allowed to stand. You don't know if parts of DADT would be split off and found to be constitutional, you don't know that an injunction on DADT would not promt the creation of a modified law, you basically just assume that letting the injunction stand would produce the exact same outcome as the reapeal act that later was passed. In short, you are speculating on what you think would have happened.
Second, there was no new presedence set by the injunction the Log Cabin Republicans won. The legal presedence that allowed their case to be successful was already set in 2003. What other legal presedence you think the Log Cabin Republicans court case would have produced you have not cared to mention, but I think it's fair to say that the precedence that case might have set (and I doubt it would set any) would have nothing to do with gay rights.
|
A) Again... the case was already ruled on! DADT was ruled unconsitutional and that it must be repealed. As for the Injunction, that was only in existance because OBAMA REPEALED. The ruling was DADT is invalid. The injunction was put there purely for appeal purposes. Had he not appealed, there would be no injunction, and DADT would be off the books.
B) Gay Rights advocates seem to disagree with you.
http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2011/09/01/log-cabin-heads-back-court
I mean, I'd give Obama a break if it wasn't for the fact that he specifically refused to appeal Prop 8 or 9 or whatever the homophobic California law was. He let that one go though.
So why'd he fight against DADT being unconsitutional, but not the California Prop?
No real reasoning comes to mind does it?
