By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Bong Lover on 12 July 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:

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  DADT was ruled unconsitutional and that it must be repealed.   As for the Injunction, that was only in existance because OBAMA REPEALED.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?

A) You don't know what you are talking about.

B) This has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I said your claim of letting the injunction on DADT stand would have created a stronger legal precedence for gay rights, I said that is speculative argument. You have still not given a single hint to what kind of precedence would be set that would go beyond Lawerence vs Texas that was setteled in 2003.

To the Prop 8 stuff, how in the world is that relevant?