All Good Men Are Created Equal

While we’re happy with recent legislative action regarding the civil rights of American citizens, philosophically we don’t think such things should be subject to majority votes — equality under the law is equality under the law, full stop. Bigotry under color of democracy is still bigotry.

And this is how things are supposed to work:

The Pentagon has ordered a halt to all separations of gay troops under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and will begin accepting applications from prospective recruits who identify themselves as homosexuals.

The moratorium issued Friday came after a ruling Wednesday by a federal appeals court in California ordering the Defense Department to immediately stop enforcing the law. The court said the law is unconstitutional because it treats gay Americans differently under the law.

Granted, we were almost there anyway — we’re looking at military “certification” of the DADT repeal in a month or so, followed by sixty days before it actually kicks in. And while the Obama Administration can always appeal the Ninth Circuit ruling to our 5-4 friends at the Supreme Court, the effort would be wasted unless they want to make their own philosophical point that DADT was constitutional to begin with.

Which leaves us with a hypothetical: If DADT hadn’t been repealed, would Obama have challenged this ruling? The queer thing is, we can’t answer that with certainty.

Pentagon suspends DADT in wake of court ruling [Army Times]

On the other hand . . .

WASHINGTON — Intent on delaying the new policy allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces, the House voted on Friday to prohibit military chaplains from performing same-sex marriages on the nation’s bases regardless of state law.

On a 236-184 vote, the House attached the amendment to the defense spending bill, one of several steps the Republican-controlled chamber has taken this year to delay President Obama’s new policy. Pentagon leaders have said they see no roadblocks to ending the 17-year ban, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is likely to certify the change for mid-summer after months of training for the services.

Still, opposition remains strong in the House. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., sponsor of the amendment, said he wanted to ensure that “America’s military bases are not used to advance a narrow social agenda.”

His measure would block funds to train the Chaplain Corps on the new policy. Huelskamp said the intent was to prevent chap

@ redmanlaw
In my four marriages, I always found that if you don’t do it on cheap carpet, you eliminate a lot of chap


They look like us now…

Right! The whole idea of “other” is on its head. This ain’t my your momma’s Battlestar!!!


he wanted to ensure that “America’s military bases are not used to advance a narrow social agenda.”

You tell, em Tim! It’s high time we got all those hyper-proselytizing evangelical Dominionists outta the armed forces!

Oh wait, that’s not what he was talking about at all… ;)

I still don’t understand why any self-respecting homo would enlist. I’m sorry but I don’t. I totally don’t get it.

As one of England’s stately homos once said, “I hope I would betray my country before my friends.”

Am I the only one ‘working’? Bastards.

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment