GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/11/02/ninth-circuit-extends-hold-on-ruling-overturning-dadt/trackback/

  1. This supposedly gay blog does not favor honest and open service by GLBT people. This supposedly gay blog does not endorse one single openly gay candidate in the entire nation, but it does endorse people who openly call for rolling back gay civil rights. And it includes calls for the demise of a gay politican and links to fundraising against the nation’s most visible gay member of Congress. What an insult this blog is to the gay community! There is nothing gay about this blog except its title and nothing patriotic about it unless it is now patriotic to bully gays and ignore the problems of GLBT youth while worshipping at the feet of those like Senator DeMint who fund the Tea Party’s most rabidly anti-gay candidates, the same Jim DeMint who 3 weeks ago called for excluding gays from teaching jobs in America. This blog was supposed to show that gays can be conservative without being narrow and mean partisans. Reading posts and comments here reveals the opposite is true.

    Comment by writerJerome — November 2, 2010 @ 1:31 am - November 2, 2010

  2. Check our archives, writerJerome. I have consistently advocated repeal of DADT — and have advertised my support (as in financial donations in addition to rhetorical praise) of SLDN, an organization that works for repeal.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 2, 2010 @ 1:43 am - November 2, 2010

  3. Hi Jerome,

    You wrote this: “This supposedly gay blog does not favor honest and open service by GLBT people.”

    I am currently still in the US Army Reserves, though I am waiting for my separation to be finalized. I am gay, but I am married to a woman and not planning a divorce. The problem you do not understand about the military is that repealing DADT won’t help gay people. You admit, in the statement above, that what you want is gay people to be “honest” and “open,” which you define as being out as exclusively gay, something that most gay people in the service do not want.

    I infer that you want to repeal DADT so that gay civilians can feel better about themselves, with no regard for the burden this places on gays and lesbians in the military who would have to lose the separation chapter allowing them to leave if they are being harassed or raped. I suppose you think that my privacy is okay to sacrifice because I live a “dishonest” life. I suppose you think that other gay Soldier’s safety is okay to endanger for a greater cause, like…. I can’t figure out what. None of the Gay Inc. position on DADT makes any sense to me.

    I can only describe your viewpoint as narcissistic and uninformed. But I don’t blame you; the discourse has been manipulated to produce narcissistic and uninformed gay people willing to fund and vote for Democrats. Which is why you mention gay teens getting bullied — which is a farcical ruse promoted by people wielding false statistics. I have blogged about a lot of these issues, too, and you can feel free to come to my website and browse the articles. You may not agree with me but I guarantee that I have information you have not heard or considered before. It is up to you to be informed and self-mastered, rather than owned by people who make money off your sense of victimhood and half-informed state.

    Have a good night.

    Comment by Coco Rico — November 2, 2010 @ 2:08 am - November 2, 2010

  4. This supposedly gay blog does not endorse one single gay candidate in the entire nation

    Google “Matthew Berry” and “GayPatriot”, and then come back here to apologize.

    And while you’re at it, Google “GayPatriot” and “Servicemembers United”, and you can also grovel as to how you got your whole shrieking fit over DADT wrong.

    You really didn’t read this blog at all, did you, Jerome? No surprise; bigot gays like yourself rarely demonstrate anything approaching intellectual curiosity or capability.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2010 @ 2:46 am - November 2, 2010

  5. Okay, I took the time to go through the archives before responding to you, Daniel. You claim to be for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell but at the same time you oppose the court ruling that suspended DADT. You say you want to see it repealed by Congress instead of the courts, but you spend most of your time supporting the very same candidates most likely to oppose the repeal of DADT in next year’s Congress. Nice finesse, sounding good while in reality destroying any chances for the repeal of DADT (other politicians, including Obama, play the same game).

    You also made it clear that you opposed the legal case against Prop 8 though you had to admit Ted Olson’s interview on Fox was brilliant. You still insist you want such matters decided in the Congress and states. History proves that we would still have no interracial marriages and that Jim Crow laws could still be around if that purist logic prevailed. Minorities have always needed the protection of the courts.

    This blog not only fails to advocate for gays, it hosts commenters who bully gay people in terms so crude and cruel they would make Carl Paladino blush. How is this a gay blog when so many commenters make gay an epithet? They use the most demeaning stereotypes of gays as shallow sex-obsessed maniacs, not realizing I have been in a monogamous relationship for years and I served the Republican Party for decades.

    You may see yourself as sincere, but you have created a forum that is certain to hurt more and more gay and lesbian citizens.

    Don’t worry, though. I will not post here again. I have been motivated to find another use of my time to effect positive change.

    But please consider dropping the word gay from the title of this blog unless you are willing to add the prefix “anti”.

    Your blog is too often used as an enemy of the gay community at large, not because they are liberal, just because they are gay.

    Comment by writerJerome — November 2, 2010 @ 2:50 am - November 2, 2010

  6. I never said Ted Olson’s interview was brilliant. My co-blogger said that.

    I really don’t have time to address your points. To note, this blog also has comments from folks calling me self-hating. And I personally approved all your initial comments which means, by your definition, we also host critics like you who call us anti-gay.

    I don’t have time to address your criticism for a great variety of reasons, primarily because you fail to address my arguments.

    Consider the coffee canceled.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 2, 2010 @ 3:05 am - November 2, 2010

  7. Matthew Berry is not on any ballot this fall. I renew my statement – the fact is that this blog s not endorsing one single gay candidate. I did not say they never had endorsed some no-name in the past due to personal friendship. His bid is history and was a token anyway.
    If anyone owes an apology to anyone, this blog owes a deep apology to all GLBT citizens for giving a platform to hate groups to abuse and belittle gay citizens. The commenter who claims that GLBT youth who committed suicide were actually part of some liberal ruse is the kind of person who feels at home here, as is the person who opposes the repeal of DADT in case she wants to use it instead of a rape defense. The “logic” here is perfect for bigots who call anyone who opposes bigotry a bigot.

    Comment by writerJerome — November 2, 2010 @ 3:06 am - November 2, 2010

  8. You mean you have been humiliated and exposed as a worthless liar, Jerome.

    And now, seeing what filth like you and yours post elsewhere about people like Dan, out comes the fact that you are a complete and total hypocrite.

    No one seriously believes your lies about a monogamous relationship or working for Republicans. You are a failure, a liar, a shill, a bigot, all of whom can be easily seen just by reading your posts here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2010 @ 3:09 am - November 2, 2010

  9. jerome is like any petulant two year old (or Obamaite) wanting what he wants”NOW” and damn the consequences. He’s an example of the ‘children’ that Nancy Pelosi said have the gavel now.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2010 @ 6:39 am - November 2, 2010

  10. Back on topic.

    Being a nation of laws, not feelings, it’s nice to see the ninth circus got one right (stopped clocks and all that). DADT is a military issue, and should be resolved in the way it was passed, EO and Congressional action.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2010 @ 7:20 am - November 2, 2010

  11. >>>Let us hope that in the lame-duck session of the Senate, Harry Reid has a strategy to push through repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell

    Yep. Leave it to Harry Reid and the Dems, because no Republican or ‘conservative’ is going to step up and fight for the repeal of DADT. They will again unanimously oppose it. The ‘big tent’ types will filibuster it or do whatever it takes to derail equality for your kind, Daniel.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — November 2, 2010 @ 9:08 am - November 2, 2010

  12. I doubt Harry Reid will, since he’s only proposed it when he knew it would fail. Of course even sending up a motion to repeal, mixed with an amnesty bill, hiding in a defense bill is enough to appease libs like Granny Goodness here.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2010 @ 9:35 am - November 2, 2010

  13. Comment by writerJerome

    (yawn… yawn)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 2, 2010 @ 11:28 am - November 2, 2010

  14. While many here would prefer that DADT die a legislative-death, this continuing-stay just continues the policy on life-support; the initial Federal Court ruling on DADT’s unconstitutionality still stands and hasn’t been over-ruled, and during the stay and any appeal to the Circuit it’s only to be enforced by extra-ordinary review by the Service Secretaries with few if any investigation to be started under the guidance issued by the office of the DefSec.’s legal counsel.

    I still think that it will be the Ninth Circuit or the Supremes that will kill this bad legislation. Neither Reid as a laim-duck…nor Obama after facing the GOP Congress in 2011…will expend the political capital to overturn it.

    Comment by Ted B. — November 2, 2010 @ 1:34 pm - November 2, 2010

  15. One of the reasons I’d rather have the legislative branch resolve most social issues instead of activist judges is because this back-forth nonsense through the courts makes the final remedy difficult to discern as a win or loss or half a loaf or a loaf no one expected.

    When a yes to a stay becomes a no to the issue but a yes to one side advancing the issue, you just gotta know in your heart the courts are a f*cked up place to solve society’s problems.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 2, 2010 @ 2:24 pm - November 2, 2010

  16. It’s never going to happen, especially after the Wiki Leaks fiasco.

    Thank you, Bradley Manning, for reinforcing the stereotype that gays are a security risk.

    Comment by Blaster_84 — November 3, 2010 @ 1:21 am - November 3, 2010

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.895 Powered by Wordpress