Lying again, Raj?

It is clear that the statute in issue, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), which was referenced in my second paragraph, is a “codification,” since “USC stands for “United States Code.”

Poor Raj; denying that nondiscrimination is written into the US Code again. Pathetic.

First, we wouldn’t be in the ditch and trenches fighting state-after-bloody-state for fair treatment… we wouldn’t be fighting against a FMA… we would likely have made more progress in the military and State Depts with Bush #41 in because he wasn’t viewed by the military nor FSOs as anti-military service (unlike the draft dodging, dope smoking Clinton).

Nope, your are the one decidedly smoking dope Michigan-Matt.

First off, the the GLBT struggle for legal recognition has always been “state-by-state”; in fact its often been city-by-city. Thats just the natural progression of most political movements. Are you actually saying that you would have preferred Bush I to impose this in an imperial way from the federal down to the states? I suggest you look up the word “President” and compare it with “King”. You will find there is a difference.

Next, DOMA was the product of a socially conservative Congress consisting of both Democrat and Republican members. The roots of the Act are in response to the HI state Supreme Court case regarding gay marriage. Are you telling me you don’t think Bush I would have signed it?

Third, DADT is the product of a that same conservative block of Congress that created the DOMA. Yes, Clinton screwed up in his handling of the issue primarily by being un-prepared with the backlash there would be in the Pentagon hierarchy, and more importantly, the back-room strings they could pull with Congress.

But the issue of the policy existed before Clinton, you can’t say with any certainty that it wouldn’t actually be worse, under Bush I. Instead of “Don’t Ask”, its far more likely active witch hunting of gay and lesbian servicemembers would be openly encouraged by the Administration, instead of just covertly as it is now.

Incidentally, why doesn’t Bush work with Congress to repeal the policy? Bush could do it, in the same sense that only Nixon could go to China. The American public would support him on it. Cheney would support it, which is a big thing in this Administration.

His glaring inaction on the matter is just as much, if not more, damming than Clinton’s actions. Clinton never really had the power to get rid of DADT. Bush has had the political muscle to be able to do it for quite some time now. But he hasn’t. For someone that enjoys parading and grandstanding around so much as Commander in Chief, and oh-so-publically taking care of “the troops” he should have taken care of this. Its a failure of moral responsibility and leadership on his part. But of course, measured against his many other failures in moral leadership, its to be expected.

Still no reference to a statute. And little if any recognition for grammar. What private school did you go to, that did not teach you anything regarding paragraphing?

Pathetic.

You simply are under the delusion that your contradicting your own statements is eliminated by putting them in separate paragraphs.

Better to review what you say before you carelessly spout off again in an attempt to defend your wild, flailing ideas.

I wrote: Unless you know of another statute or executive order on the issue, the relevant one is 5 USC 2302(b)(10) and I described the deficiencies in relying solely on that statute above.

You wrote. Wrong. First you denied the statute existed by claiming it wasn’t part of the US code.

Apparently, you do not understand the concept of paragraphing. Go back and read #33. If you have your magnifying glass on, you will see that the question that I raised in the first paragraph of my text was whether an executive order “‘codifies’ anything.” It is clear that the statute in issue, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), which was referenced in my second paragraph, is a “codification,” since “USC stands for “United States Code.” There was nothing in that paragraph that question whether 5 USC 2302(b)(10) was a “codification.” (NB: If you do not know what “codification” means, look it up in a dictionary, because I am not going to explain it to you.)

Apparently you do not know any other statute in point. No surprise.

Your lunacy is getting to be boring and tedious.

Wow. And there you have it.

This President, this GREAT MAN, spends “maybe 4 hours” on “pushing a constitutional amendment.” Isn’t it incredible that someone can think so little of the Constitution of the United States of America that they would spend “maybe 4 hours” to amend it? He must think so little of it.

Or, on the other hand, he thinks most highly of the Constitution of the United States of America. In that case, he thinks so very lowly of gay people and can’t push a more insulting and demeaning piece of legislation.

Which is it?

Wrong. First you denied the statute existed by claiming it wasn’t part of the US code; then you tried to manipulate the discussion and completely avoid the fact that numerous court cases had already established the fact.

Aside from the fact that you don’t have the slightest idea how I voted in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, it is rather silly for you to suggest that I am “repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were.

I know exactly what I said, Raj.

Your statements, in an attempt to make your massa Clinton’s actions meaningful to gay people, only succeed in proving how meaningless they were, empty and full of spin, meant to cover up your support of massa Clinton’s enactment and support of DADT and DOMA.

DOMA and DADT don’t make gay peoples’ lives more difficult?

In that case, since federal bans on gay marriage and military service do nothing to make gays’ lives more difficult, what exactly has Bush done that qualifies?

“…But you are smoking dope if you think that things would have been better under a Republican Administration” than under Clinton.

Gramps lets his BushHatred emotion get in the way of prudent practical political judgements again. It would have been far better under George HW Bush #41 and Veep Dan Quayle than under the impeached president Gramps and his buddies voted for… far better for gays.

First, we wouldn’t be in the ditch and trenches fighting state-after-bloody-state for fair treatment… we wouldn’t be fighting against a FMA… we would likely have made more progress in the military and State Depts with Bush #41 in because he wasn’t viewed by the military nor FSOs as anti-military service (unlike the draft dodging, dope smoking Clinton).

No one’s smoking dope, Gramps… unless it’s you for meds.

So legislation is all important eh? How about the Massachusetts law, passed in *1913* which forbid out of staters from getting married in MA.

This is an incorrect characterization of the MA 1913 statute. What the statute did was to render void a marriage that was concluded in Massachusetts between a couple, at least one of whose members was a resident in a state in which the marriage would have been void if conducted there, AND if that member (or those members, if both resided in such a state) intended to return to the other state. If both members of the couple intended to remain as residents of MA, and if the marriage would have been recognized in MA (that is, if they were of sufficient age, degree of non-consanguinity, etc., according to MA state law), the marriage would not be void.

The statute was enacted to discourage inter-racial couples from coming to MA from states in which anti-miscegenation laws were extant to marry (miscegenation was legal in MA), and then returning to their home states, although the statute is much broader in its language. As far as I know, the statute was never enforced for that purpose, but I don’t know whether the town clerks–who issue marriage licenses–actually ever tried to determine whether the out-of-state couples actually met the requirements of their home-states’ marriage requirements. I get the impression that the clerks didn’t, because when the issue came up on regards same-sex marriage, they were complaining (i) that they were not equipped to determine the marriage requirements of other states and (ii) the Romney administration had never given them guidance as to what those requirements were. (So much for Romney’s bloviations on the issue.)

In short, it WAS codified and it WAS policy.

Unless you know of another statute or executive order on the issue, the relevant one is 5 USC 2302(b)(10) and I described the deficiencies in relying solely on that statute above. If the statute was as clear as you apparently would like to believe it was, why was it inconsistently–if it was applied at all by individual agencies–applied “over the years” in federal employment?

You just like to play coverup for your support of Bill Clinton and DOMA by repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were.

Aside from the fact that you don’t have the slightest idea how I voted in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, it is rather silly for you to suggest that I am “repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were. It seems to me that you would be suggesting that I would be repeatedly pointing out how meaningful Massa Clinton’s gestures were.

Try again

He probably doesn’t spend much time thinking about gay people. And that’s the point. If the government just leaves us alone, our lives will continue to improve.

What? I’m guessing that you took at least 8 years off from reality during the 90s? Better yet, I think you’ve taken more than 8 years.

Choosing between an ineffective Democrat or an actively hostile Republican is an unhappy choice, but not really a difficult one. No matter what you say about Clinton, he didn’t spend time going out to find new ways to make gay people’s lives more difficult… Bush does.

And if Clinton never did anything good for gay people, why has Bush had to go around overturning so many of his Executive Orders?

Court decisions, civil service rules, and legislation have given Gay federal employees significant – though inconsistent – protection over the years.

In short, it WAS codified and it WAS policy. You just like to play coverup for your support of Bill Clinton and DOMA by repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were.

HA! Not only have I always been a registered independent, not only did I never vote for a Democrat until 2004, but I was never especially fond of the Clinton Administration at any point between the years 1992 and 2000. In fact I literally danced in the halls (yes I do mean literally) when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Clinton never let me down because I never put any stock in his Machiavellian presidency to begin with. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

In general, I prefer the Free Market to sort these things out. All Government tends to end up doing is picking one group that gets to shit on another group.

However if Clinton had not been elected, at a minimum DADT would still be in place as an Administrative policy. I also think it likely that Congress would have passed it into law anyway. They were already talking about prior to the campaign season.

Clinton can be fairly faulted for many things. Feel free to call his Presidency a disaster if you wish. But you are smoking dope if you think that things would have been better under a Republican Administration. Things might have been different, they would not be better.