Random Politics & Religion #03

Except I would have been forced to suffer the shame and public humiliation of getting fisted by ackeronie for casting such dispersions....

So I believe you know what you can do with all of your P&Rs

Bill Clinton passed more Anti-gay legislation than any US President. It was Bill Clinton that signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. It was Bill Clinton that began the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell which is an indelible blemish on human rights that can never be undone. Vile. Disgusting.

If DOMA came across Obama's desk do you have any doubt that he would veto it? Of course not because he actually leads. The Clintons were sniveling cowards when they had to opportunity to lead on gay rights, instead they joined in on the fight to keep gay Americans in the closet with second-class rights.

It's been a while, but people have honestly forgotten how bad Bill was in this regard. Hillary's stances have only changed pretty recently.

And then you've got the NYT writing about Trump's positions: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html

tl,dr; He still won't come out in favor of gay marriage, but he seems to have no actual objection to it, based on a multitude of personal experiences. By pretty much any measure, he's BY FAR the friendliest candidate they could hope to get. Really though, just read the article. It isn't that long.

They're Southern Christians. Do you really think they'd have been able to establish themselves as such without hatin' them some gays?

I'm not saying they actually do hate them, and I'm not saying all southern Christians are like that; in fact, most of the ones I know -- including clergy -- are not.

But a lot of them clearly are; look at the politicians who get votes for acting in such a fashion.

"There's a disease that only kills ***?

"And we should do something about it?" - St. Ronald the president.

This just factually incorrect and utter nonsense.

DOMA:

Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr (R-GA) May 7th 1996.

Passed the house 342 Yeas, 67 Nays July 12 1996
Passed Senate 85 Yeas, 14 Nays Sept. 10 1996

Due to the large majority from both houses it was Veto proof.

DOMA was indorsed by the 1996 Republican party.

Clinton critcized DOMA as unnecessary and divisive.

I'm not even a Clinton fan but I'm not going to let my opinion create personal narratives that do not reflect what happened.

Don't ask Don't Tell had good intentions and was flawed but it certainly was not an indelible blemish on human rights.

lolwhat?

It was written and passed to protect people in a time when fully allowing them in the military wasn't possible.

But hey, narratives and all.

I was going to say.

Its message wasn't "stay in the closet, ***."

It was "mind your own *** business, someone else's sexuality is none of yours."

Even I had that figured out back then, ffs.

I mean yeah it was flawed but it was still better than the situation that existed prior.

Which was? Minding your own business?

A lost art in the new century!

Oh-hoh! This could go down a path that no one on AH particularly enjoys.

/looks at the clock.

Guess not.

Perhaps in concept but in practice it was definitely the former.

Granted that's how it played out.

It didn't play out as intended, but that doesn't mean the intention wasn't there. It wasn't meant to punish or ostracize anyone. Unintended consequences and what have you.

Actually, taking that back. "Stay in the closet, ***" was the message from the onset.

I'd like to think it's intent was to say "don't *** worry about it, worry about the people shooting at you," but as I said, it turned out as a failure one way or another so...

If it also disallowed straight service members from discussing their own sexuality and relationships, then I'd maybe think that as well. But it specifically targeted gays because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability" (i.e., gays are icky).

Separate but equal could be argued as having good intentions, but we know better.

I can say I never interpreted it that way, but it also never applied to me and I'm willing to admit perhaps I took it at face value.

Which, never-the-less -- and I hate defending Clintons too much -- makes it a failure, but not the hate crime it was brought up as here today.

Well being that discharge from service for being openly gay was in effect prior to DADT, the aspect of mandating superiors and peers to not pry in attempts to out someone was a step in the right direction.

It didn't get rid of the discharged from service aspect for being openly gay, in that respect it didn't go far enough. But this was a compromise from the push back by military leaders and politicians. Which shouldn't be ignored.

Much like the executive orders ending discrimination based on sexual preference in the Federal Civilian Workforce shouldn't be overlooked/forgotten

One step at a time, sometimes their baby steps but as long as it's in the right direction eventually we get there. Hell, it took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to finalize what the 14th and 15th Amendments set out to do 100yrs prior.

Sometimes it feels as though administrations with war time authority and the ability to enable policy unchecked has fogged our memories of how politics are about compromise and concessions to keep all parties happy.

For those that want to read a bit more, there is an article from UC Davis here:

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military_history.html

It's very possible. I've just not heard/seen that with Jehova's Witnesses nearly as much as Mormons.

Witnesses just go door-to-door and make you uncomfortable, and your friends get them to go to your house at 7:00 a.m. on a Saturday to *** with you.

Because it's forbidden for them to interact with people outside the cult if not to proselytize. If they get friendly with someone not from the sect they face severe punishments.

Kind of reminds me of a previous topic that took a dive when people were willingly dismissive of the effects on education in former Jim Crow states.

Hmm. I should look into this.

Also, in light of Prince's death, let's remember he was a pretty devout JW and seemed to do okay outside of Temple with other people...

Maybe they're worse in Italy?

IDK. Mormans/Jehovas...I like you're gusto, but you may as well be trying to sell me steaks out of a refrigerated truck in July. That's nice. No thank you.

your*

Jeez.