And? Good for her. Gay marriage should be legal, whether judges are gay or straight.
meatgrinderz
Spot-on my dude. And we should care if judges are gay because they're more likely to rule on the side of gay marriage and such. In fact, we should force non-gay judges out (through elections, slander, or other) until gay marriage is reality.
Fantastic news! As long as gay people keep infiltrating prominent positions in society, gay marriage will be a future certainty. What are your thoughts on this?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Gays entering the military didn't change at all. They weren't supposed to be in. But it was a question that was asked before....and after DADT...it couldn't be asked anymore. So that was a step up dude.LJS9502_basic
No one's debating it wasn't a "step up". Only you. Because you like to start semantic arguments. Under the policy, if it was found out you were gay then you were fired. No wiggle room for misinterpretation but I'm sure you'll find a way.
Oh I was responding to the sarcastic tone you used in regard to Clinton. I corrected your point. You were a bit...wrong on that.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Actually, when DADT was first signed, it was pretty progressive. It's because of that policy that gays were allowed to serve in the military at all.LJS9502_basic
Nope. Gays could get in through the back door but it wasn't an open invitation that said "yay come on in homos"
Gays entering the military didn't change at all. They weren't supposed to be in. But it was a question that was asked before....and after DADT...it couldn't be asked anymore. So that was a step up dude.
No one's debating it wasn't a "step up". Only you. Because you like to start semantic arguments. Under the policy, if it was found out you were gay then you were fired. No wiggle room for misinterpretation but I'm sure you'll find a way.
Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that my comment rendered yours moot.
How exactly? My point was that putting control in the hands of the states isn't a solution to many problems like this one. I never said that the federal government was perfect. The common response to falwed federal legislation is to go the "states-rights" route, but in a story like this, we can see that minorities will fair no better, and often worse than they would with federal legislation in place.
Yeah, true. I'm not sure Fed laws will do much to avert such a situation. If an employer really wants to fire someone for being gay then they'll go out of their way to find a valid reason. Perhaps quotas would fix it. Then again, hiring based on quotas means you'll have to make a spot for gays over more qualified candidates.
Log in to comment