*sigh*

I think this is what you get when a former law professor is President: a compulsion to dot every I and cross every T. It's as if the administration believes that it is under some sort of compulsion to defend and appeal up to the bitterest end every government case before the courts. Surely they realize they can pick and choose their fights, and to surrender when a ruling comes down which is in line with their stated desires. But no, that's now how this administration does things. For that reason I expect that they will also appeal this new ruling on DADT even though it is a gift from the smegging gods.

On very much a side issue, I'm disappointed that the new DADT ruling was issued by a Clinton appointee. With the other rulings on gay rights this year having been issued by Republican appointees, it's been so much fun having the retort "Don't you know the judge in this case was appointed by Reagan/Bush 41/Bush 43" all ready to fire off when some airhead right-winger starts screaming about 'judicial activism'. Having a Clinton appointee join the party kind of spoils the fun by making it just a little bit harder to slap down stupid complaints.

Obama was never a law professor. Any judge can cross from interpretation of law to attempting to create it, not just Democrat appointees, but thanks for noticing that Republican appointees are less likely to engage in this type of activism.

The following statement was published by the University of Chicago Law School (emphasis added):

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

He served as a "senior lecturer," Clinton made an issue of this in the primary resulting in the carefully worded statement from the university. He had not research or publishing requirements as do normal professors. But, I guess, all of this may be just a matter of semantics. To me, professor is a title. But I concede the point.

but thanks for noticing that Republican appointees are less likely to engage in this type of activism

Who on Earth are you talking to? If you were directing this at me, then you either misunderstood what I wrote or are deliberately twisting it. I would say that as far as 'judicial activism' is concerned, a right-wing judge is more prone to such than a conservative, a moderate or a liberal judge. There was a study on that done within the last year or two. The source is something I'm drawing a blank on at the moment. Someone else may be able to provide it before I can manage to.

Anyway, my real point was--and I thought I was being perfectly clear--was that we've had two boffo judgments on gay rights this year, both of which fulfill the requirements for an accusation of 'judicial activism' from the right (that they weren't liked by the right being the only important requirement, really), and that the accusation is neatly punctured by the fact that both judges were Republican appointees. No broader point was intended or made beyond the fun of puncturing an ignorant airbag's instinctual rant by making the observation that these progressive judgments were issued by supposedly non-progressive judges. I've re-read my first comments and I don't think your 'misunderstanding' can be laid at my feet.

Right-o, MeddlingMonk.

With the other rulings on gay rights this year having been issued by Republican appointees, it's been so much fun having the retort "Don't you know the judge in this case was appointed by Reagan/Bush 41/Bush 43" all ready to fire off when some airhead right-winger starts screaming about 'judicial activism'.

I took your "fun" to mean that normally you don't get the privilege of throwing it back in Republicans' faces. Normally it is a Democratic appointee who makes such rulings so you can't respond "it was a Republican appointee." This situation was unusual, you seemed to be saying, but now that the last of the three rulings was again a Democrat your fun has been spoiled.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. I'd be interested in see the study you mentioned if anyone knows more details.

So would I. I can only just vaguely remember the thing. It's just too bad none of the details have stuck, like the author's name and the exact scope of the paper or report or whatever exactly it was. I suck at remembering names and a search for 'conservative judicial activism' is way too broad.

I agree with u and was offended by this gaff as well. Michael P.

It's not necessary that preference implies conscious choice. A preference could very well be hard wired. Of course, preference sounds more as if it involves choice as orientation.

I don't know why others are reluctant to accept this fact other than it lessens their argument. And, this doesn't not mean your son or other military personnel are homophobic or want to deny gay rights.

It is a simple matter, given the current organization and logistics of the military it is not conducive to having to share certain living spaces with an individual who may find you sexually attractive. This is why we have male and female bathrooms, not because their is a difference in plumbing but no one wants to feel more uncomfortable in these settings.

Is it just a stereotype or general truth that women are more comfortable around gay men?

They shall be allowed to shut up.

RobDon, we currently don't have separation of gays and straights although they are living together and many know it.

Believe it or not gay people Do Not join the military to have a shot at all the straight guys, they join to serve their country with Pride and Honor. Had it been left to the "average military person" of the time, African Americans and other minority groups would not be serving this country. The U.S. Military is an incredible thing, it adapts to change faster & better then the average American citizen.

I have no idea what ChrisE84 is saying but BrianOfSaginaw you make a good point about the "average military person" objections to minorities.

I never said nor meant to imply that gay servicemen did not enter the service for noble causes or that they were on the prowl, just that many people do feel uncomfortable in certain quarters with someone who could potential be sexually attracted to them. (It does not mean they are about to pounce.) To deny this would be to deny what homosexuality is. Most women are not comfortable undressing in front of a male.

I'm not saying this should stop the process of change, just that it has to be a consideration during the process. Most comments on this subject involve accusations of homophobia or hatreds towards gays. The woman in the above example is not fearful of the man nor does she hate men, it's just a fact of our culture...want to work to change it? Okay, but don't deny or dismiss the realities in the process.

The US military (and probably any other military) has a real problem with straight men and women where the women play the victim role. So there's a little bit more to the thing about separation of men and women.

If you look at the numbers who gets thrown out under DADT, there's a disproportional share of women and minorities. There are also reports that female victims of sexual violence and harassment get punished instead of the perpetrator.

I guess that we have to look at the realities and see that those straight rapists are great soldiers ...

I've never seen those numbers but would like to, can you post a link or give direction?

As to the last statement, anyone guilty of misconduct should be dealt with appropriately. I'm not even asserting that gay soldiers are doing this type of behavior.

In following articles they are mentioned and you can follow the references:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/opinion/21herbert.html?_r=2

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/military_culture_punishes_rape_victims_instead_of_rapists

Who cares whether or not the majority of soldiers are in favor of ending DADT? The military isn't a democracy. The function of the soldier is to obey orders, and if the orders say that gays can serve just as straights can, then a soldier has only two options: to say "Sir! Yes, sir!" or to resign.

RobDon, at university I lived in a coed house and we did not give a fig about undressing in front of someone of the opposite sex. This is truly a matter of misguided social conditioning that can surely be overcome by rational adults.

mightbealiberal, maybe the social conditioning will change in this situation as well.

ChrisE84, in this statement:

If you look at the numbers who gets thrown out under DADT, there's a disproportional share of women and minorities.

Did you mean there are a higher number of women and minorities discharged for violating DADT? If so, these were the numbers I was asking for...the reference you gave on women becoming victims of straight men and the repercussions falling on the women is true and needs to be addressed better.

I'm not saying, nor implying that gay servicemen or women would be more or less likely to engage in assault. I would suspect (haven't researched) that gays in the general population are LESS likely to commit such assaults and that would be true in the military.

My comments have all been around social norms. And as mightbealiberal pointed out, those can change.

By the way, I saw most of Rachel's interview last night with the active serviceman who is gay. I thought that was well done, very informative, and much more likely to change people's views than calling them homophobic or hateful, because many, if not most, who have concerns in this area are not either. IMHO.

Thanks...

Yes, it's already clear that you're anti-gay. And no, it's not a choice. Wrong terms don't change reality.