ad_facebook
ad_facebook_468

2 responses to “Two groups send mixed message on DADT repeal timing”

  1. Mariah Colette, FL.

    I find it apalling how a man who speaks of equal rights for america, has the nerve to down the LGBT society. Are they not equal to that of any heterosexual being. Also, men and women are allowed to serve in the army together, so why is it that homosexuals can not serve in the armed forces with their significant other. All that matters is the fact that they are fighting for the freedom of America. It should not depend what their sexuality is. John McCain is arrogant in that he wishes to deny patriotic americans to serve their country due to thier sexuality. – mariah colette lbhs high school

  2. Karl Streips (Riga, Latvia)

    I have lived in Europe now for 20 years and am just appalled at what is happening in American politics, but in this particular case, specifically about John McCain. What is this man’s problem? First he said he wanted the military’s leaders to speak out. They did — in favor of repeal. Then he said that the views of the military leaders needed to be studied in greater detail. They were — in favor of repeal. Then he said that he wanted to know what service members think. They said yes to repeal. Now he’s saying that this, too, needs to be studied in greater detail. What’s to study, Senator? You’re in the minority. You won another six years in the Senate in November — why are you being such a jerk about this? It’s bad enough that you ruined your reputation by foisting Sarah Palin on America. Do you really need to ruin it further by claiming that the concept of equal protection in the United States Constitution actually does not apply equally to everyone? For shame, Senator! For eternal and damning shame!

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more


Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more