| Kasz216 said: What you perhaps missed, was that was direct legal opinion from the decission from the ruling in question. So I think what you mean to say is... "Those judges don't know what they are talking about." You are free to back out of the debate however you wish, but there wasn't a stronger piece of evidence either of us could bring to the arguement then the opinion of the judges in the case directly stating the precedential value that can no longer be used in direct, in depth. In persisting to disagree, you are not disagreeing with me, and saying I don't know what i'm talking about. You are disagreeing with the judges who ruled in the case, and saying they don't know what they are talking about. |
No, what I am saying, and this would be completely unncessary to explain AGAIN if you would read through what is being discussed, is that the precedence that potentially would have been created by the LCR vs USA ruling would not have gay rights implications. It was a ruling that went very far in expanding the bill of rights to military law.
Gays already have the right to free speech and association. The ruling was that DADT violated these rights, and that the rights given under the bill of rights takes precedence over military law. This is a radical shift in the traditional understanding of free speech and the right to association in the military and opens up a million cans of worms that no one knows how it would transform the US military. That is why the Justice Department imediatly appealed and sought a stay btw, not because they hate gay rights. It should be unnecessary to spell it out again, but this is not a case of expanding gay rights, it's a civil rights issue and a definition of which civil rights compromise the battle readiness of the military and which don't.
I am sorry, but your claim that the LCR vs USA ruling establishes a findamental right to be gay is just meaningless, especially trying to say it establishes a fundamental right beyond Lawerence vs Texas. If you want to claim that anyone has a fundemental right to be hetrosexual for example, where does that right come from? You can say it's an unenumerated right of course, but if that is the answer then how could you possibly claim that Lawerence vs Texas doesn't establish a fundemental right to be homosexual? It's legal paradoxes like these that you have introduced that have me wondering if you have any idea what you are talking about, except I am not really wondering that much.
So in conclusion. If LCR vs USA would have been allowed to stand, there are a number of consequences of that ruling that are unknowns to us today. It would for one force a new policy on the issue of political speach in the military. There's no way you can say as fact that these changes would lead to stronger gay rights, the same level of gay rights, or restricted gay rights. Since these things are unknowns, your initial stand that letting the ruling stand would create a stronger precedence for gay rights is speculative.
Since I expect a rebutal from you, please do me the favor of finally answering my question on how the LCR vs USA ruling grants any gay rights. Be forewarned that I will not accept 'the right to serve in the military' as a valid response. That right was established by DADT.
