Gay Marriage post DADT repeal

[cbaxter182]

What do you think? Since our senate has repealed don't ask don't tell allowing openly gay/lesibian servicepeople to serve in the military, do you think the next step would be for gay marriage to be legalized? How do you think this new legislation will affect gay marriage, as well as other civil rights issues?

As a personal opinion, I could care less. If you're gay and you want to get married, be gay. Get married. Whatever makes you happy. I don't think our government should be encroaching on civil liberties such as marriage unless of course it poses some threat to national security, or the like. Can't everyone just be happy? Christ.

[Javs]

Isn't gay marriage a state by state issue unlike DADT?

Ultimately we got lucky during the lame ducks, I dont see any progress for gay rights in the next two years though.

[loveisdead]

Subscribing. I'll try and post something substantial when I'm home from work.

[caveBEAR]

It's going to definitely have an impact on how we treat LGBT rights. This is the first real step America's made in a while to ensure that bigots, not homosexuals, are the ones ostracised.

[Juan Jose]

Isn't gay marriage a state by state issue unlike DADT?

Ultimately we got lucky during the lame ducks, I dont see any progress for gay rights in the next two years though.

Yea that's how it works but the problem is when a gay couple leaves a state where its recognized and go to a state that doesn't recognize it they can't get the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple.

[Debut_Fin]

I would be really surprised if it didn't happen within the decade

It would have been nice for the DREAM Act to pass, too

[PandaBear!]

If Obama doesn't get a 2nd term (is that the right word?), Gay marriage wont be legalized in the near future imo

[J.C.]

More likely to see movement on this in the courts.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

If Obama doesn't get a 2nd term (is that the right word?), Gay marriage wont be legalized in the near future imo

If he gets a 2nd term, I doubt same sex marriage will be legalized. He campaigned saying he supports civil unions over marriage rights.

[PandaBear!]

If he gets a 2nd term, I doubt same sex marriage will be legalized. He campaigned saying he supports civil unions over marriage rights.

Oh, i didn't know that. Not surprising, seeing as i am in no way knowledgeable on the subject of US politics
What do you think it will take for it to be legalized?

side note: at this rate i think we'll see weed legalized in some small way before s-s.m's will !!! :-d

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Oh, i didn't know that. Not surprising, seeing as i am in no way knowledgeable on the subject of US politics
What do you think it will take for it to be legalized?

side note: at this rate i think we'll see weed legalized in some small way before s-s.m's will !!! :-d

I think with the DADT repeal, we should see more tolerance in America of gays in the next several years. But every time gay marriage was up on the ballot, it was struck down by voters. It's only legal in a couple states because judges have deemed the ban unconstitutional.

[PandaBear!]

I think with the DADT repeal, we should see more tolerance in America of gays in the next several years. But every time gay marriage was up on the ballot, it was struck down by voters. It's only legal in a couple states because judges have deemed the ban unconstitutional.

Is that solely the judges decision or does it require a lot of other people's input? 'Cause if it's just judges that are deeming it unconstitutional what's stopping all the judges in other states doing the same?

[blinvisible]

Isn't gay marriage a state by state issue unlike DADT?

DOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) is a federal act, and notably affects immigration.

[saysmydoctor]

Isn't gay marriage a state by state issue unlike DADT?
No because married couples receive benefits/credits from the federal government as well.

[captivewear]

I know people laugh or think I am weird when I say this but if you want the kick start the economy and lower the unemployment rate then allow federal marriage for gays. Make it legal for gays to get married everywhere in the US. It would create thousands of jobs. If anyone has ever help plan or been to a wedding with more then 50 guest you know just how much goes into planning and the cost associated going into the wedding. So if you allow for gays to get married in every state then think about a year from now how many more weddings there will be. How many more jobs will be created by small businesses. I mean how many small businesses go involving a wedding?
-wedding planner
-graphic designer
-florist
-dj
-land or area being rented
-lighting rental
-rsvp cards
-tuxes and dresses for at least 10 people.
-catering food
-bartender
-photographer (nearly almost always self-employed or part of a small business)
-makeup artist
-centerpieces
-renting or buying of all the tables, chairs, stands etc.

That is just a few of what I could think of off the top of my head. I mean literally within a 1-3 month span you potentially have a bridal shower, bachelorette party, bachelor party, wedding, wedding reception and then a honeymoon.
That is tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars being put into the economy.
Just a thought everyone seems to overlook. If you don't want to do it for equality then do it for the economy...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I know people laugh or think I am weird when I say this but if you want the kick start the economy and lower the unemployment rate then allow federal marriage for gays. Make it legal for gays to get married everywhere in the US. It would create thousands of jobs. If anyone has ever help plan or been to a wedding with more then 50 guest you know just how much goes into planning and the cost associated going into the wedding. So if you allow for gays to get married in every state then think about a year from now how many more weddings there will be. How many more jobs will be created by small businesses. I mean how many small businesses go involving a wedding?
-wedding planner
-graphic designer
-florist
-dj
-land or area being rented
-lighting rental
-rsvp cards
-tuxes and dresses for at least 10 people.
-catering food
-bartender
-photographer (nearly almost always self-employed or part of a small business)
-makeup artist
-centerpieces
-renting or buying of all the tables, chairs, stands etc.

That is just a few of what I could think of off the top of my head. I mean literally within a 1-3 month span you potentially have a bridal shower, bachelorette party, bachelor party, wedding, wedding reception and then a honeymoon.
That is tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars being put into the economy.
Just a thought everyone seems to overlook. If you don't want to do it for equality then do it for the economy...

I live in in Connecticut, which is one of the few states that grant same-sex marriages. Gays across the country have come to this state to be married. There have been articles detailing its positive effect on local businesses.

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/news_wtnh_shelton_gay_marriage_busi ness_200812072325_rev1

[loveisdead]

Ah, wtnh. The memories.

[Matt Chylak]

I know people laugh or think I am weird when I say this but if you want the kick start the economy and lower the unemployment rate then allow federal marriage for gays. Make it legal for gays to get married everywhere in the US. It would create thousands of jobs. If anyone has ever help plan or been to a wedding with more then 50 guest you know just how much goes into planning and the cost associated going into the wedding. So if you allow for gays to get married in every state then think about a year from now how many more weddings there will be. How many more jobs will be created by small businesses. I mean how many small businesses go involving a wedding?
-wedding planner
-graphic designer
-florist
-dj
-land or area being rented
-lighting rental
-rsvp cards
-tuxes and dresses for at least 10 people.
-catering food
-bartender
-photographer (nearly almost always self-employed or part of a small business)
-makeup artist
-centerpieces
-renting or buying of all the tables, chairs, stands etc.

That is just a few of what I could think of off the top of my head. I mean literally within a 1-3 month span you potentially have a bridal shower, bachelorette party, bachelor party, wedding, wedding reception and then a honeymoon.
That is tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars being put into the economy.
Just a thought everyone seems to overlook. If you don't want to do it for equality then do it for the economy...


thats a pretty small (we're talking less than 5%) bubble, which wouldnt stimulate the economy in the manner you're suggesting

[cityscapes101]

The repeal is definitely going to push the gay rights movement in the right direction, but I don't see gay marriage being legalized anytime soon, especially since it's a state law, not a federal thing. Not to bash the south (that's where I live), but with it being the state's choice the southern states will never legalize it. Maybe in the next decade we'll get somewhere.

[captivewear]

thats a pretty small (we're talking less than 5%) bubble, which wouldnt stimulate the economy in the manner you're suggesting
Says who? 5% is a heck of a lot in this economy. Sure it may not create a job for everyone but it helps keep the few jobs we have now and also creates more jobs and revenue for small businesses. If people see their friends and family have more success it builds consumer confidence which one of the top things you need to spend your way out of the recession. It could be a small but helpful snowball effect.
People ask what can the gov't do to help the economy and create jobs and I just gave one. Not only that but it is the right thing to do and is the civil rights issue of our time.

[tonyC4L]

No because married couples receive benefits/credits from the federal government as well.
Hehe, this was funny to read next to your avatar.

[Kozzy333]

I bet this does nothing to push gay marriage or gay rights forward.

[WakingTheMisery]

I bet this does nothing to push gay marriage or gay rights forward.

I'm not sure this mentality makes any sense.

[Scrandon]

I bet this does nothing to push gay marriage or gay rights forward.
Gays now have the right to serve in the military, smart one.

[Kozzy333]

Gays now have the right to serve in the military, smart one.

I meant the after effects of this, not the obvious implications of repealing the act.

[J.C.]

I bet this does nothing to push gay marriage or gay rights forward.

Yeah, the course of history will continue on the same path as if DADT hadn't been repealed.

[Kozzy333]

Yeah, the course of history will continue on the same path as if DADT hadn't been repealed.

Is this sarcasm? I genuinely believe that to be true.

Just because suddenly gays can be open in the military that doesn't mean people will become more accepting towards gay marriage. I don't see how that logic works.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Is this sarcasm? I genuinely believe that to be true.

Just because suddenly gays can be open in the military that doesn't mean people will become more accepting towards gay marriage. I don't see how that logic works.

It's called tolerance. It's going to take years. Like I said earlier in the thread. Back in the 60's, blacks didn't gain acceptance overnight.

[Scrandon]

I meant the after effects of this, not the obvious implications of repealing the act.
Oh well, that's wrong too.

[The Indigo]

Is this sarcasm? I genuinely believe that to be true.

Just because suddenly gays can be open in the military that doesn't mean people will become more accepting towards gay marriage. I don't see how that logic works.
It means people are already more accepting of gays, a trend that should reasonably continue.

[Matt Chylak]

Says who? 5% is a heck of a lot in this economy. Sure it may not create a job for everyone but it helps keep the few jobs we have now and also creates more jobs and revenue for small businesses. If people see their friends and family have more success it builds consumer confidence which one of the top things you need to spend your way out of the recession. It could be a small but helpful snowball effect.
People ask what can the gov't do to help the economy and create jobs and I just gave one. Not only that but it is the right thing to do and is the civil rights issue of our time.

i meant to say 0.5%, my bad. sure, it would help the wedding industry...but minimally, and for a brief amount of time. no where near the amount it would take to give the economy a true boost.

also, with the bolded: don't separate this into different issues. clouds your point.

[J.C.]

Is this sarcasm? I genuinely believe that to be true.

It was sarcasm. You should acquaint yourself with human history and the concept of progress. Once you start to recognize the rights of an aggrieved class and they become more integrated in society, the boogeyman they were shrouded in starts to fade. If you continue not to recognize their rights(the scenario you laid out), you only perpetuate the idea they're subhuman, at which point they'll never achieve general acceptance.

In layman's terms, you can't make it to Gum Drop Mountain without first passing through Candy Cane Forest.

Just because suddenly gays can be open in the military that doesn't mean people will become more accepting towards gay marriage. I don't see how that logic works.

"Just because we let black people vote doesn't mean people will eventually become accepting of interracial marriages. I don't see how that logic works."

- Kozzy333's great grandpappy

[apoemtothedead]

I know people laugh or think I am weird when I say this but if you want the kick start the economy and lower the unemployment rate then allow federal marriage for gays. Make it legal for gays to get married everywhere in the US. It would create thousands of jobs. If anyone has ever help plan or been to a wedding with more then 50 guest you know just how much goes into planning and the cost associated going into the wedding. So if you allow for gays to get married in every state then think about a year from now how many more weddings there will be. How many more jobs will be created by small businesses. I mean how many small businesses go involving a wedding?
-wedding planner
-graphic designer
-florist
-dj
-land or area being rented
-lighting rental
-rsvp cards
-tuxes and dresses for at least 10 people.
-catering food
-bartender
-photographer (nearly almost always self-employed or part of a small business)
-makeup artist
-centerpieces
-renting or buying of all the tables, chairs, stands etc.

That is just a few of what I could think of off the top of my head. I mean literally within a 1-3 month span you potentially have a bridal shower, bachelorette party, bachelor party, wedding, wedding reception and then a honeymoon.
That is tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars being put into the economy.
Just a thought everyone seems to overlook. If you don't want to do it for equality then do it for the economy...
Plus the gays love to party. Each would probably generate twice that of a straight wedding.

[cbaxter182]

I'm glad I started this thread. Lots of input. But in reference to the previous comment about this gay marriage being a state by state issue as opposed to a federal issue... While that is true to a degree, the states who have legalized gay marriage have done so because it was deemed unconstitutional to not legalize it. This of course is the document that lays out the laws of our country. If there is so much dissent among the states, then it will have to be taken up to district court, and then to the USSC. The hard part is going to be getting the justices to vote the topic in after it is appealed up through district court. All the justices have to vote to let the case be heard. Honestly this could be a scenario where it doesn't happen because they are in conflict themselves. It wouldn't be the first time. But when this eventually does hit the supreme court, this topic will be the next big firestorm. The next step in the civil rights movement, and the biggest since womens/black sufferage and desegregation of schools...

[boxingwithstars]

Despite this progress, I think we're still a long way from federal recognition of same-sex marriage. We still have a president who says he doesn't "believe" in same-sex marriage. I think getting rid of DADT was his way of showing he cares about the gay rights movement without having to push for the marriage issue (which is a lot more politically risky) right before his first term is up. He had the Pentagon and top military officials on his side for this one, but it would be more difficult to find that kind of support for a repeal of DOMA.

So, I don't see it happening during Obama's presidency. And unfortunately, I have a feeling our next president will be even more conservative than Obama.

[Kozzy333]

It was sarcasm. You should acquaint yourself with human history and the concept of progress. Once you start to recognize the rights of an aggrieved class and they become more integrated in society, the boogeyman they were shrouded in starts to fade. If you continue not to recognize their rights(the scenario you laid out), you only perpetuate the idea they're subhuman, at which point they'll never achieve general acceptance.

In layman's terms, you can't make it to Gum Drop Mountain without first passing through Candy Cane Forest.



"Just because we let black people vote doesn't mean people will eventually become accepting of interracial marriages. I don't see how that logic works."

- Kozzy333's great grandpappy

I'm just not convinced that this will push forward any gay rights movement further because I'm a pessimist. Not against gay people at all, I want to make that clear. Not sure your point with a quote from my "great grandpappy" but it just made you seem like a douche.

[J.C.]

Not sure your point with a quote from my "great grandpappy" but it just made you seem like a douche.

I was pointing out how poor your logic was by implementing it into an argument that could've been made in the past. I wasn't making a comment about your actual grandfather, Francis.

[boxingwithstars]

I'm just not convinced that this will push forward any gay rights movement further because I'm a pessimist. Not against gay people at all, I want to make that clear. Not sure your point with a quote from my "great grandpappy" but it just made you seem like a douche.

Cynical or not, you can't deny this is progress. It is pushing the gay rights movement forward, maybe just not at the speed some people are hoping for.

[captivewear]

I am just curious as to the reason why we CAN"T have gay marriage? For all you opposed to gay marriage I would like to hear your reasoning...

[caveBEAR]

I am just curious as to the reason why we CAN"T have gay marriage? For all you opposed to gay marriage I would like to hear your reasoning...

Jesus this, God that, 'institution of marriage', blah blah blah.

[boxingwithstars]

I am just curious as to the reason why we CAN"T have gay marriage? For all you opposed to gay marriage I would like to hear your reasoning...

Because then the terrorists have won, and God will smite us all.

[Ricketts]

I'm just not convinced that this will push forward any gay rights movement further because I'm a pessimist. Not against gay people at all, I want to make that clear. Not sure your point with a quote from my "great grandpappy" but it just made you seem like a douche.

I follow your logic and agree with you. I think that these people arguing with you are being a tad idealistic.

[caveBEAR]

I follow your logic and agree with you. I think that these people arguing with you are being a tad idealistic.

Exactly. This is basically a 'nothing' victory, everyone knows how accepting the armed forces have been of homosexuals before.
:rolleyes:

The point is, it's a step forward. Whether it's a small step or large step is to be determined, but to act like this won't have a ripple effect is inane. We'll take idealism over inanity.

[saysmydoctor]

Our idealism is blinding us. Clearly, DADT is not a victory for gay rights but rather a setback.

[caveBEAR]

Our idealism is blinding us. Clearly, DADT is not a victory for gay rights but rather a setback.

Exactly. It's not like the armed forces was the last place that you could legally be let go for being a homosexual or anything, therefore removing the idea that homosexuality is something you need to hide or should be ashamed of from one of the major institutions of American life.

[Ricketts]

I didn't say it's not a step forward. I just think the ripple effect will be thousand of times smaller than most of you would like to think. I could be wrong.

[saysmydoctor]

I didn't say it's not a step forward. I just think the ripple effect will be thousand of times smaller than most of you would like to think. I could be wrong.
Spoiler alert: you are.

[caveBEAR]

I didn't say it's not a step forward. I just think the ripple effect will be thousand of times smaller than most of you would like to think. I could be wrong.

At least you've got some foresight.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I am just curious as to the reason why we CAN"T have gay marriage? For all you opposed to gay marriage I would like to hear your reasoning...

An argument I've heard that oppose gay marriage is that employers' insurance will have to grant spousal benefits for its gay employees.

[J.C.]

I didn't say it's not a step forward. I just think the ripple effect will be thousand of times smaller than most of you would like to think. I could be wrong.

WAS MY CANDY LAND ANALOGY NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU

[Ollie McKraut]

Anyone want to explain why the repeal of a silly policy is a 'major step forward?'

I hardly think any of the politicians/judges vehemently opposed to gay marriage are thinking 'ho hum, well, openly gay people are allowed to serve in the military, I guess they've got a point.'

This demonstrates a gradual, gradual shift in the prevailing attitude. The issue of open homosexuality in the military is quite far removed from the issue of same sex marriage in my opinion. There was a long-ass time between the acceptance of blacks in the military and their full assumption of civil rights. And there is still debate over the relationship between "marriage" and "civil right."

[J.C.]

DIAF, Ollie.

[captivewear]

An argument I've heard that oppose gay marriage is that employers' insurance will have to grant spousal benefits for its gay employees.
another reason for an universal single payer health care system...

[boxingwithstars]

Anyone want to explain why the repeal of a silly policy is a 'major step forward?'

I hardly think any of the politicians/judges vehemently opposed to gay marriage are thinking 'ho hum, well, openly gay people are allowed to serve in the military, I guess they've got a point.'

This demonstrates a gradual, gradual shift in the prevailing attitude. The issue of open homosexuality in the military is quite far removed from the issue of same sex marriage in my opinion. There was a long-ass time between the acceptance of blacks in the military and their full assumption of civil rights. And there is still debate over the relationship between "marriage" and "civil right."

Because it was a "silly policy" that was marginalizing a huge group of individuals. Openly gay men and women have never been allowed to serve in the military, and now they will be. It is a huge step forward.

An argument I've heard that oppose gay marriage is that employers' insurance will have to grant spousal benefits for its gay employees.

Funny, that's an argument I often use for it.

[Ollie McKraut]

DIAF, Ollie.

hell of an argument ya got there, buddy

[Ricketts]

was My Candy Land Analogy Not Good Enough For You

I'm Sorry

[awfulwaffle]

Because it was a "silly policy" that was marginalizing a huge group of individuals. Openly gay men and women have never been allowed to serve in the military, and now they will be. It is a huge step forward.





I fail to see how DADT marginalized a "huge group of individuals," I'd love to see the amount of openly homosexual people that choose to enlist in the military in the coming years. I can assure you that number will not be substantial.

[caveBEAR]

I fail to see how DADT marginalized a "huge group of individuals," I'd love to see the amount of openly homosexual people that choose to enlist in the military in the coming years. I can assure you that number will not be substantial.

How about the homosexuals already in the military?

[Thriftstoresuit]

I fail to see how DADT marginalized a "huge group of individuals," I'd love to see the amount of openly homosexual people that choose to enlist in the military in the coming years. I can assure you that number will not be substantial.

:hitself:

[boxingwithstars]

I fail to see how DADT marginalized a "huge group of individuals," I'd love to see the amount of openly homosexual people that choose to enlist in the military in the coming years. I can assure you that number will not be substantial.

You're right... more than 13,000 people have been discharged under the policy, but that's no big deal. There are no homosexuals currently serving in the military, and there will be no more after this. Why bother?

[kutegirllovecom]

a day to remember

[awfulwaffle]

While 13,000 have been discharged as a result of the policy, that number has been on the steady decline for the last decade, because the policy isn't enforced during war times. According to CNN, the number of troops discharged as a result of DADT in 2009 was roughly one third of those discharged in 2001. DADT wasn't pursued because one's sexual orientation does not affect one's ability to fight. This really isn't a monumental moment in policy change, rather a silly policy whose effect has been trivialized.

[saysmydoctor]

While 13,000 have been discharged as a result of the policy, that number has been on the steady decline for the last decade, because the policy isn't enforced during war times. According to CNN, the number of troops discharged as a result of DADT in 2009 was roughly one third of those discharged in 2001. DADT wasn't pursued because one's sexual orientation does not affect one's ability to fight. This really isn't a monumental moment in policy change, rather a silly policy whose effect has been trivialized.
The policy is enforced during war times. We were embroiled in two wars in 2009. Don't you remember?

[caveBEAR]

Funny, we were talking about how CNN never knows what they're talking about in a different thread, and here it is (apparently) popping up again. I love it when this stuff comes full circle.

[J.C.]

...that number has been on the steady decline for the last decade, because the policy isn't enforced during war times. According to CNN, the number of troops discharged as a result of DADT in 2009 was roughly one third of those discharged in 2001.

Only took you a sentence and a half to completely contradict yourself. Impressive.

Illegal immigration numbers have been in steady decline since the 90s. Perhaps Republicans should shut the hell up about it.

[Simulcast]

Only took you a sentence and a half to completely contradict yourself. Impressive.

Illegal immigration numbers have been in steady decline since the 90s. Republicans should probably shut the hell up about it.

True, but what they shouldn't "shut the hell up about" is the fact that we've effectively ceded land to drug cartels along the border. That frightens me a bit more.

[theargylepilot]

Funny, we were talking about how CNN never knows what they're talking about in a different thread, and here it is (apparently) popping up again. I love it when this stuff comes full circle.

Hey man... I love Larry King. :(

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Only took you a sentence and a half to completely contradict yourself. Impressive.

Illegal immigration numbers have been in steady decline since the 90s. Perhaps Republicans should shut the hell up about it.

Republican policies sparked the recession, which in turn drove down border crossings due to less employment opportunities. So... Republicans do know how to reduce immigration.

[awfulwaffle]

The policy is enforced during war times. We were embroiled in two wars in 2009. Don't you remember?

We're still in two wars, what I'm saying is the number of homosexuals discharged during war times decreased over the decade

[awfulwaffle]

Republican policies sparked the recession, which in turn drove down border crossings due to less employment opportunities. So... Republicans do know how to reduce immigration.

I'd love to know which republican policies "sparked" the recession...are they the same ones that have exacerbated the recession and failed to decrease unemployment?

[loveisdead]

I'd love to know which republican policies "sparked" the recession...are they the same ones that have exacerbated the recession and failed to decrease unemployment?

Hahahahahahaha. You're trolling.

[saysmydoctor]

We're still in two wars, what I'm saying is the number of homosexuals discharged during war times decreased over the decade
No, what you said was the policy isn't enforced during war times. That's a lie.

[awfulwaffle]

Hahahahahahaha. You're trolling.

;), It's too easy sometimes, especially here

[J.C.]

awfulwaffle living up to both the awful and the waffle parts of his name.

[serenab1221]

I'm not sure this mentality makes any sense.

This is very off topic of me but I'm digging the avatar. Just got back from seeing this in the theater like ten minutes ago. What a movie.

[serenab1221]

I love how people are so quick to shoot down our victories as if they were nothing and that nothing will come of them. This is great progress.

[serenab1221]

I fail to see how DADT marginalized a "huge group of individuals," I'd love to see the amount of openly homosexual people that choose to enlist in the military in the coming years. I can assure you that number will not be substantial.

It marginalized the entire gay community. Last time I checked, they gay community is a rather huge group of individuals.
It's not about who will or won't serve; they should all still have that option available to them. Whether or not the amount of homosexuals who enlist is substantial is irrelevant.

[cityscapes101]

I'm glad I started this thread. Lots of input. But in reference to the previous comment about this gay marriage being a state by state issue as opposed to a federal issue... While that is true to a degree, the states who have legalized gay marriage have done so because it was deemed unconstitutional to not legalize it. This of course is the document that lays out the laws of our country. If there is so much dissent among the states, then it will have to be taken up to district court, and then to the USSC. The hard part is going to be getting the justices to vote the topic in after it is appealed up through district court. All the justices have to vote to let the case be heard. Honestly this could be a scenario where it doesn't happen because they are in conflict themselves. It wouldn't be the first time. But when this eventually does hit the supreme court, this topic will be the next big firestorm. The next step in the civil rights movement, and the biggest since womens/black sufferage and desegregation of schools...

Yeah you're right. Eventually, maybe not anytime soon, maybe not until I'm fifty years old, but eventually, this issue is going to hit the supreme court and it's going to be another major equal rights issue that will definitely make history.

[Under The Knife]

It would have happened once homosexuality was accepted country-wide. This is shoving it down throats. A kamikaze tactic that's going to prove to be problematic short term, but undeniably beneficial long term.

Another possible problem that could arise from it would be the drill sergeants are just gonna have more ammo to bash the recruits. But there's gonna be some effeminate person that'll come along and the drill sergeant will drop the f- bomb and the he'll will sue the military for harassment. Bada bing bada boom, DADT is reinstated to prevent that bullshit from happening again.

[yves.]

It would have happened once homosexuality was accepted country-wide. This is shoving it down throats. A kamikaze tactic that's going to prove to be problematic short term, but undeniably beneficial long term.

Another possible problem that could arise from it would be the drill sergeants are just gonna have more ammo to bash the recruits. But there's gonna be some effeminate person that'll come along and the drill sergeant will drop the f- bomb and the he'll will sue the military for harassment. Bada bing bada boom, DADT is reinstated to prevent that bullshit from happening again.

:hitself:

[boxingwithstars]

It would have happened once homosexuality was accepted country-wide. This is shoving it down throats. A kamikaze tactic that's going to prove to be problematic short term, but undeniably beneficial long term.

Another possible problem that could arise from it would be the drill sergeants are just gonna have more ammo to bash the recruits. But there's gonna be some effeminate person that'll come along and the drill sergeant will drop the f- bomb and the he'll will sue the military for harassment. Bada bing bada boom, DADT is reinstated to prevent that bullshit from happening again.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FUQgwgo0eHA/S9W_iEDuigI/AAAAAAAADGA/axf1GdlEqIA/s320/Debbie_Downer.jpg

[caveBEAR]

It would have happened once homosexuality was accepted country-wide. This is shoving it down throats. A kamikaze tactic that's going to prove to be problematic short term, but undeniably beneficial long term.

Another possible problem that could arise from it would be the drill sergeants are just gonna have more ammo to bash the recruits. But there's gonna be some effeminate person that'll come along and the drill sergeant will drop the f- bomb and the he'll will sue the military for harassment. Bada bing bada boom, DADT is reinstated to prevent that bullshit from happening again.

How the hell would a drill sergeant pissing off a cadet by saying f** lead to a reinstating of DADT? Please, explain this one out for me.

[Under The Knife]

Not "fuck" but the other f- bomb (the one offensive to gays)

[caveBEAR]

Not "fuck" but the other f- bomb (the one offensive to gays)

No shit, that's why the word had two asterisks instead of three. Now explain to me to how a drill sergeant saying f** leads to what you described.

[loveisdead]

Ha. My friend just got home from boot camp and had the best stories about drill sergeants saying the craziest things.

[boxingwithstars]

Maybe drill sergeants should be advised not to call people ******s anymore... since they shouldn't have been saying it to begin with.

[caveBEAR]

Maybe drill sergeants should be advised not to call people ******s anymore... since they shouldn't have been saying it to begin with.

Comments like these are just a slippery slope to a reinstatement of DADT!!!

[boxingwithstars]

Comments like these are just a slippery slope to a reinstatement of DADT!!!

I can see why DADT was a good policy now... it protected drill sergeants from harassment lawsuits. I mean, what will the military be like if people aren't allowed to use derogatory homophobic terms?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Just replace the f-word with "maggot"