And perhaps I did in this case. At this point, I really don’t remember the parade’s facilitators’ justification for pulling out all the stops to prevent a gay group marching under a banner (although, again, I’m not questioning their right to do so).

I think most people need to be more discriminating when it comes to dating and marrying if you ask me. Although I know some people who are way too discriminating and looking for Mr. or Ms. Superperfect. I just think the law should be less discriminating in that regard.

I’d attribute hatred as a component of bigotry. The Catholic Church doesn’t ‘hate’ gays. Indeed, not allowing a group you disagree with to promote their views is not bigotry. hunting down every available avenue of communication and stiffling them would be bigotry.

Agreed. In fact, I know a few nuns (even some older ones) who are very gay friendly, and support at least civil unions. Their logic being that we encourage straight people to settle down, the same should be for gay people.

In that instance, I wear my bigotry of Nambla with pride.

Well, that makes two of us.

Maybe we could break down walls of indifference to our unjust laws if we showed any visible interest in other groups’ unjust laws. You didn’t see the Stonewall people giving up their seats on the bus to any black people.

Ashpenaz, as I mentioned, we all have different opinions as to what unjust laws are. For example, my understanding is that most (not all) on this site believe that immigration laws should be enforced. Maybe not necessarily throw all illegal residents out, but do what we can to make sure no more come in. You seem to take the opposite view. I’m somewhere in between. Most gay people believe that laws that would prohibit abortion are unjust. Are you telling me that the whole gay community should side with that?

As for your Stonewall comment, I personally don’t know what those specific individuals regarding the civil rights of Blacks in the 1960s. But many gay people have supported their civil rights. Sometimes the majority of a group doesn’t return the favor, e.g., Prop. 8.

I do feel the ‘bigot’ title is thrown around a bit heavily. Discrimination is good. If I’d been a bit more discriminating, I’d not have two divorces.

I’d attribute hatred as a component of bigotry. The Catholic Church doesn’t ‘hate’ gays. Indeed, not allowing a group you disagree with to promote their views is not bigotry. hunting down every available avenue of communication and stiffling them would be bigotry.

In that instance, I wear my bigotry of Nambla with pride.

They’re allowed to show solidarity as Catholics, or as Irish. Just not as a ‘gay group’ because that goes against the Private Organization’s rules.

I know, I know. Curse the Constitution and that pesky free association clause.

Actually, this is an interesting point. I’m sure there are plenty of gay people that show up for Cinco de Mayo celebrations. And perhaps many of them share you view on illegal immigrants. There’s no problem with these people showing solidarity.

Sometimes groups of gay people aren’t allowed to show solidarity. New York has the big St. Patrick’s Day parade, and every year a gay Irish group tries to march under its banner. They are prohibited each year by the homophobes that run the parade.

Don’t be surprised if you find that illegal immigrants are indifferent to gay rights, or in many cases anti-gay themselves.

The government obviously takes a risk in investing in 18-year-old’s education no matter what the circumstances are. Yes, we’re all adults at 18, but we don’t always have the same goals at 22 or 28 when we were 18. I think our military is at least well aware of that.

Oh, so NOW you’re paying attention to what other people think. Funny, that never happens on things like gay marriage.

I’ve been paying attention. But apparently you weren’t since you forgot to mention that many gay conservatives and GOProud support the end of DADT. And I have a pretty good idea on what people think about same sex marriage, and acknowledge that there are plenty of liberals (e.g. Obama), as well as conservatives that are against it. Fair enough?

However, the law on the books is DADT. If Lt. Choi did come out (no pun intended) and say “Look, I’m here, I’m queer, I’m an LT!” Then yes, he should be booted. If his orientation was discovered by, oh, walking in on him and a boyfriend, or overhearing a phone call, or an anynomous tip, that’s different, as it seems to fall under the DA part, not the DT. And if that were the case (as I’ve said elsewhere) then President Obama should be able to use his powers as CinC to stop the investigation.

Look, I’ve a beard and long hair, and I’m fat. If I joined the army I’d have to shave and lose weight. If I were to grow the mullet back, get the goatee going, and bloom back up to 400 lbs, I’d be dischaged/imprisioned for breaking the regulations. I accept that part of the terms of the contract I voluntarily signed is that I’d go clean shaven and thinner of frame.

Lt. Choi took his actions, in a civilized society we all have to live with the consequences.

If honesty was so important to him, he should have said something before the taxpayers provided him a free education for which his sexual orientation made him ineligible to fulfill the conditions around it.

Does Choi intend to do the honest thing now and pay back the United States for the money spent on his education, since he can’t abide by the conditions that he agreed to to get it — or is he going to keep his free degree that he would not have been eligible for had he been honest in the first place and stated that he could not abide by military regulations?

Only gay liberals insist that it’s unfair? Many gay conservatives think so too, including GOProud. Oh, many straight persons, including Barry Goldwater thought the asinine policy should have been changed.

Oh, so NOW you’re paying attention to what other people think. Funny, that never happens on things like gay marriage.

Perhaps, Ignatius. But stupid rules are stupid rules. That’s why rules can and should be changed sometimes.

He simply decided that being gay was the most important thing in his life, instead of his military service.

Maybe so, NDT. But I’m not sure what it has to be one extreme or the other. Why couldn’t it simply be that Lt. Choi felt that while serving in the military was very important, so was being honest.

No problem with that; people leave the military all the time because they think things are more important than military service. The difference is that only gay liberals whine about it and insist that it’s “unfair” that they have to choose.

Only gay liberals insist that it’s unfair? Many gay conservatives think so too, including GOProud. Oh, many straight persons, including Barry Goldwater thought the asinine policy should have been changed.

The President will undoubtedly send the good Louie a nice handwritten note, ignoring the fact that the office he holds requires leadership which on this he has shown very little of.

Agreed, John. Obama has provided little leadership so far, and none on this issue.

More’s the pity as Bill Clinton’s legacy of betrayal is allowed to continue and good soldiers are let go.

Sure, Clinton caved in, but he got us halfway there. It was Bush’s job to do the rest, but he had no inkling to do so. Still waiting on Obama, but not holding my breath.

If he doesn’t make this change with a Democrat Congress, they are frauds and gays should feel disenfranchised. In my eyes Obama will look like a coward.

Gene, I wouldn’t object to Republicans uniting and pushing the end of DADT. Or are you implying that would not happen and that Republicans are cowards as well?

Repealing this law would strengthen our armed forces by increasing the pool of qualified men and women from which they could draw.

Now why would liberals favor that, besides the fact that it would be more spank bank material when they die in combat?