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  DADT was ruled unconsitutional and that it must be repealed.   As for the Injunction, that was only in existance because OBAMA REPEALED.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

African Afro community likes their obamacare:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/mitt-romney-naacp-speech-/1#.T_8DYpJ_jvU

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?

A) Except I do... look it up?  DADT was ruled unconstituional, and the Injunction was put in place, demanding enforcement of it stop immediatly so the law didn't keep being enforced through the appeals process.  Unless of course, your talking about the injunction of the injunction which is even stronger in my point.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/10/breaking-ninth-circuit-stays-d.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States

B) Your joking right?   Lawerence vs Texas' only precedent was that sex acts could not be illegal.  This set no actual precedent in regards to treatment of people who comit those acts.   Which is why it's perfectly legal in most states and in the federal government to just outright fire someone specifically because they are gay.

Like Lofton vs Family Services.

Check wikipedia which notes.

On September 9, 2010, Judge Phillips ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding that DADT violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.^[11][12][13] Noting the deference that courts are required to show the military in reviewing First Amendment claims, Phillips found that the "sweeping reach" of the restrictions placed on the speech of LGBT military personnel by DADT is "far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake". Phillips also found that DADT violates LGBT personnel's right of association, as it prohibits them from openly joining organizations like LCR for fear of reprisal, thereby depriving them of their ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. Phillips further ruled that DADT violates LGBT personnel's substantive due process rights, as articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, associated with the "'autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.'"^[14]

In otherwords, new precedence would be everything bolded.  It goes from "Being illegal to prosecute people on what intimiate acts they do in the bedroom" to "It becomes illegal to be biased against people for the acts they do in the bedroom."

In the interest of keeping it real, let me retort.

You've pointed out three or four times now that the Log Cabin Republicans won some law suit in a lower California court that ruled DADT unconstitutional and that the Obama administration appealed the ruling and requested a stay on the injunction that was passed with the ruling. For the record, I know these facts, what you fail to realize is that that has no relevance to what we are talking about.

You claim that if the Log Cabin court case had been allowed to stand, it would have provided stronger legal precedence for gay people, I say that is speculative. As you point out in your own quote, the ruling is heavily dependent on the ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. So yes, the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling absolutely sets precedence here, the Log Cabin ruling would (probably) not have been possible without this ruling. (keep in mind that the Lawrence vs Texas case directly contradicts a previous SC ruling, without that ruling overturned there is no way the Log cabin wins their case). The principle upheld in that ruling is basically that homosexuals conduct is protected by the 'due process clause' by the 14th amendment (and 5th). This opens the door for all the other findings and is the real legal precedence in this case.

Your conclusion above shows that you have not understood what the rulings in either case you are talking about are about.

So, the real precedence that the Log Cabin case would have set was that it gives certain civil rights much more weight in relation to the military than before. It's already established law that the military must be considered as a society unto itself and that civil law not necessarily can be applied to the armed forces. The ruling basically lifts certain rights beyond this devision. That is the real precedence and probably the real reason why the ruling was appealed so vigorously, apart from the fact that constitutional law is rarely settled in a District Court. So the hypothetical precedence that this ruling could have set would be a relative strengthening of the civil rights of service members, and would not have been a gay rights issue.

A much cleaner process is of course to just repeal DADT all together, which happened, and would have happened before the Log Cabin ruling was even made if it wasn't for ....?

So yes, based on this it's highly speculative to try to project what gay rights would have been strengthened in the hypothetical case of DADT being overturned in a District Court in California rather than it being repealed by Congress.

I can't beleive you are still argueing this.

Do me a favor, read the difference between the ruling in Lawerence V Texas and Log Cabin V USA

It's getting tiring to explain over and over again the huge differences.

There are plenty of cases, and this is one of them, of rights getting more and more broadened out due to court cases. 

And yes.. civilian courts have forced changes in the military before.

Oh no! Did I disappoint you by continue to argue a point on an internet discussion board related to politics? My apologies!!! I am sorry that you are getting so tired of defending your point. Unfortunately though, sometimes when you go on a public forum and state your opinion as fact you will get called out on it. I understand that perhaps it is frustrating that you got caught this time when there's so many rampant transgressions all over the same discussion board. If it makes it any easier to accept, I singled out your comment initially because of a series of petty spelling errors. Feel free to dismiss my objections to your feeble argument as grounded in a childish annoyance at the use of the 'would of' construct.

That said, you are quite right that there is a huge difference between Lawrence Vs Texas and Log Cabin Vs USA. The first being a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, the second being a footnote in the story of the repeal of an unfortunate piece of legislation. You don't have to explain the difference, nor is it necessary to point out that the two cases are different. I know that they are, what I am not sure of though is if you realize the importance of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. Basically, it is widely accepted as being the legal precedence for almost all gay rights legislation, including the Log Cabin case which was filed as a direct consequence of the ruling. In fact, Lawrence Vs Texas is so groundbreaking that the full ramifications of the ruling are not yet known. For example it is not inconceivable that it will provide the precedence for legalizing gay marriage. By claiming that Log Cabin Vs USA would have set legal precedence relating to gay rights outside of what is already established by Lawrence Vs Texas you are going against most conventional understanding of what legal precedence means. Unless you can back that up with something substantial it remains a highly speculative claim.

Should you muster the strength to continue our exhausting discussion, I look forward to your reply. Rest assured that I will probably reply withing the fortnight should you choose the respond.

You know...  I had a large chapter size arguement here explainging thigns simply... but I'm going to go at it from a much more simple way.

Lawrence V Texas didn't have first ammendment precedent.  Still doesn't.  This case would of had first ammendment precedent.

Why do I think this case had legal precedence?   Plenty of reasons... as stated above... but to go for the simpliest reason.  

The appelate specifically said that it created new legal precedence that no longer exists due to them vacating it.

"Because Log Cabin has stated its intention to
use the district court’s judgment collaterally, we will be clear:
It may not. Nor may its members or anyone else. We vacate
the district court’s judgment, injunction, opinions, orders, and
factual findings—indeed, all of its past rulings—to clear the
path completely for any future litigation." Those now-void
legal rulings and factual findings have no precedential, preclusive,
or binding effect."

I trust you find it substantial that the court that vacated the result acknowledged that such a ruling would of had precedential, perclusive and binding effects on future rulings before it was vacated?

Hell the concurrence even went a step further argueing that not only did it set new legal precedence for the 1st ammendment,  it set up new precedence for the 14th ammendment going much further then Lawrence V Texas did.... and that new precedence was wrong based on past rulings.

"Lawrence held that the liberty interest protected by the due
process clause prohibits states from criminalizing private
homosexual conduct by consenting adults. 539 U.S. at 578.
Nothing in Lawrence establishes a general fundamental right
to engage in homosexual conduct. See, e.g., Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. 2005)

(“Lawrence . . . did notannounce . . . a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution,
for adults to engage in all manner of consensual sexual
conduct . . . .”); Lofton v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Children &
Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 817 (11th Cir. 2004) (“t is a
strained and ultimately incorrect reading of Lawrence to interpret
it to announce a new fundamental right.”)."