Politics driven by party line, and fear on appearing to side with the guys across the aisle... on anything.

The generals who are a large part of the problem do not vote a party line.

During the State of the Union address, as both sides of the aisle got up to applaud a resolution of this, all the joint chiefs sat on their hands in stern silence. That is where leadership on this issue must come from – and is not. As many reporters suggest, the chiefs do not understand that the soldiers have no problem. The chiefs come from another generation where the bias was widespread. It is suggested that Adm Mullen is trying to get his peers to start accepting reality – apparently without success.

I think you are pretty much spot on.

While you may be right about the attitudes of upper echelon military, morethanpretty's comment/example was about the way congress is working. More correctly, not working.

I wish more than anything that people in this country would just grow the fuck up, acknowledge that homosexuality is a normal human variant not worthy of hatred and that those who live it should have the same rights--all the same rights--as heteros. And then maybe we could focus on more important things.

Yeah, but if you hippies had your way, we wouldn't have anybody to look down on. :haha:

How's this?

I like that Bruce.

I heard a funny line last night on Bill Maher's Show.
Something to the effect of ...
Fine if you want to invade Iran next, go for it, but all the troops have to be gay. At least it'll be better choreographed than the last couple...

I can't agree more. And stop trying to change the Constitution to address the issue.

I love that poster, Bruce.

Wow, there's a dangerous ambiguity!

Frightening, isn't it?

I'm so used to signs using apostrophes incorrectly, that it almost looks wrong when they don't.

:lol:

God never uses contractions. Signs from god do not look wrong (ie Moses saw a burning Bush).

Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling
Bold mine.
From here
Can someone clarify this for me?
Are they really "obligated" to appeal this. I understand that they normally do, but they aren't required to. On top of that it makes no sense when this administration has openly supported the repeal of it. What gives?

They're probably obligated to defend the initial case, but I doubt they're obligated to appeal.

When it comes down to it, Obama isn't particularly liberal, despite the conservative poutrage over everything he does. He says the same "I'm not prejudiced against gays, but they shouldn't get married" that your standard (ie non-mouth-frothing) anti-gay politician does. I doubt he'd oppose congressional action to remove DOMA, but I don't expect him to do anything that could be construed as HIM removing it.

It's the same with Don't Ask Don't Tell. He wants Congress to remove it. He could defang it pretty effectively through executive order, but he hasn't.

It's not an indefensible position; perhaps the impetus for congressional action would be removed if it happens through congressional or judicial action. There's also the people who don't consider judicial decisions to be as legitimate as congressional action. And anything done through executive order can be undone by the next president.

Of course, while we're waiting for this to be done "properly", the discrimination continues.