Some gays are starting to get it.

“It” being the fact that the Democrats talk big about gay issues at election time, but consistently fail to make any serious effort to deliver once they’re in office.

“Once they’re elected, they’re not fighting for things like civil unions or same-sex marriage or ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ because they’re hot-button issues,” said Wyatt, who usually supports Democrats. “We’re just used as a piggyback for them to get into office. It’s absurd.”

That last line is the clearest statement of the general attitude of the Democrat Party. “Use gays to get into office, but don’t actually follow through on any talk about equal rights, because it’s too controversial.”

The Republican Party is all but openly hostile to gays, using opposition to “the Gay Agenda” as a rallying cry anytime they think they can get away with it, while Democrats claim to support gays. This leads many gays to believe they have to vote for Democrats simply to oppose Republicans on gay issues. It’s the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” fallacy, and it gets us nowhere.

Remember Rule 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more, no less.

The Democrats are not fighting for gay rights, they’re fighting for gay votes. They have their own objectives, and don’t care about us except for how we can help them meet their objectives. As long as they can keep getting gays to vote for them just by promising to help without actually having to give us results, they will.

[Source: AP article on Yahoo! news, retrieved 10/24/10]

So how’s the view from under that bus?

DADT is back in force again. I didn’t think that would last. It’s temporary right now – the 3-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a temporary stay of the injunction and told both sides to file arguments by Monday, then they will decide to extend the stay or allow the injunction to remain in place while the appeal goes forward.

I’ll say it again – Obama doesn’t care about gays, he cares about votes. As long as he can convince people he’s more likely to get a repeal of DADT than a Republican, he’ll keep almost getting it done so he can get those votes.

Get used to looking at that undercarriage. He’ll keep throwing us under that bus for as long as he thinks he can get away with it.

Gee, I never saw THIS coming

US seeks delay in ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ ruling

The Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to allow the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy to continue while it appeals her order to end the ban on gays serving openly.

Obama really wants to end DADT. Really, he does. He’ll get to it any day now, for sure.

There’s always room for more under the bus.

[Source: AP story on Yahoo! News, retrieved 10/14/10]

“Don’t Ask, Dont’ Tell” suspended – for now.

Update: SayUncle has linked to a story indicating that we are getting thrown under the bus.

So much for being a fierce advocate. President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has announced that they will be filing an appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is actually a separate case that was decided back in July. The injunction entered yesterday that ends enforcement of DADT was in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America and Robert Gates. Still, it’s a good indication that Obama’s administration will appeal the latest case, too.

Still, how many gays will continue to vote Democrat even after this?


Judge orders ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ injunction

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal.

The question is, will Obama tell the Justice Department not to appeal?

Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips’ ruling stand.


Gay rights groups warned gay troops not to make their sexual orientation public just yet. Aaron Tax, the legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal. If that happens, the case would be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the decision could be reversed.


The case put the Obama administration in the awkward position of defending a policy it wants Congress to repeal.

It’s even more awkward politically, because he promised during his campaign to repeal it, but we’ve see very little actual movement to do so, and what we have seen has been slow, noncommittal, and half-hearted. “But what about the bill the Republicans killed?” I can hear people asking. Well, remember, that by itself wouldn’t have ended DADT.

President Obama agreed to the Pentagon study but also worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn’t suffer. [emphasis mine]

That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

See? That bill effectively left it up to the Pentagon and the Defense Department – it depended on the military agreeing to lift DADT. Does anyone really think that would have actually happened?

They also conveniently leave out the fact that the bill was actually a rider on a spending bill. Oh, and they again failed to mention the fact that DADT wasn’t the only controversial social legislation attached to that bill – there was a measure on public funding for abortions, and one on immigration policy. Any one of those, including the DADT repeal, might have killed the bill, but putting all three together certainly did. Just don’t expect the MSM to tell you that.

I’d like to think that if Obama’s administration appeals this decision that it would finally make the majority of the LGBT community realize that the Democrats are not their friends, but I don’t hold out much hope for that. Too many have been driven to the Dems because of the Republican party’s near-official antagonism toward anything non-hetero – Republicans who are LGBT friendly are seen as rare and unusual, and as bucking the party line. Too many have bought into the myth that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

To that, I can only quote Rule 29: “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.”

At best, the Democrat party is indifferent to us -neither hostile nor friendly – but sees us as useful enough to feign friendship. At worst, they are hostile to us but see us as useful enough in light of the Republicans’ open hostility to hide their own while they use us for their own gain. They’ve thrown us under the bus too many times for me to believe anything else.

Now we wait to see if Obama will do it again, knowing that so many gays will still vote for Democrat candidates whatever he chooses. After all, repealing DADT is a major political carrot he will be able to dangle in front of us for as long as it’s in effect – letting it get killed at the wrong time takes away a prime piece of bait for attracting gay voters.

What will it be Mr. President? Will you keep your promise, or will you throw us under the bus secure in the knowledge that most gays will get right back on when you tell them to?

[Source: AP Story at Yahoo! News, retrieved 10/12/10]
[Update Source: LezgetReal article, retrieved 10/13/10]

The things they don’t tell you

The MSM, that is. I was pissed at the Republicans (and the two Democrats who joined them) for blocking the military spending bill that contained a repeal of DADT. It looked like more of the same anti-gay bigotry that drove me away from the Republicans in ’04. But it looks like the MSM has failed to mention a couple of other even more controversial social amendments that were attached to this bill.

What’s one way to cement your “support” of the military, gay rights, public funding for abortion and open-borders policies while accusing the opposition of obstructionism? Shoehorning them into a military spending bill just before recess, mere weeks before midterm elections, that’s how.

Not just one, but three hotly-contested social issues are lumped into the bill.  While debate over amendments is matter of course for military budget bills, Harry Reid has approved only three.  The lucky few?  The Dream Act, a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and a repeal of the law prohibiting military hospitals from performing abortions overseas.

With those issues in the bill, I don’t wonder why it got shot down. I can’t blame the R’s anymore, either. This was dirty pool by the Democrat leadership.

And for the record, while I do support repealing DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military, I also think putting it into a “must pass” military spending bill is the wrong way to do it. I strongly support the idea of Congress only addressing one issue per bill.

[Source: Hot Air: The Green Room article, retrieved 9/23/10]

(h/t SayUncle)

Another reason DADT should be repealed

She followed the rules and stayed in the closet – and someone else outed her to the military, so now she’s been discharged under DADT.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old’s honorable discharge under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.


Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.


In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.

Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn’t know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn’t help with her partner’s arrest.

This was blatant retaliation, despite the police department’s claims that once they knew they “had” to tell the military. They knew that giving that information to her superiors would destroy her career – it’s not like DADT is a secret. Telling the military she’s a lesbian could do nothing to help them bring in her partner, the only possible goal was to hurt Newsome for not cooperating.

This is another example of why DADT is just wrong. You can follow the rules, staying deep in the closet and keeping any relationships a deep, dark secret, but if someone else outs you to the military, your career is destroyed anyway.

We already make gays and lesbians hide who they are for their entire military careers. Should we also make them take a vow of celibacy and eschew all romantic relationships for as long as they serve? I might support that – but only if we require heterosexuals to do the same thing.

Update: A little research prompted by a debate going on over at A Conservative Shemale has revealed that we actually do effectively make gays and lesbians take a vow of celibacy when they join the military. From the actual DADT law (10 U.S.C. 654)

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts


(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

[omitted sections deal with exceptions to the law]

So gays who join the military can’t have a romantic relationship (after all, even kissing or holding hands by two men can be considered “a homosexual act or acts”). I stand by my original conclusion: I might support that – but only if we apply it to heterosexuals, too.

%d bloggers like this: