The debate surrounding the rights of gays in America is very intense whether it involves their right to marry or serve in the military. Recently the Obama Administration has switched gear and instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. This shift signals a pivotal change in the administration’s policy concerning this issue. Before this change the President has only acknowledged that the act is bad policy but defended its constitutionality. This could be interpreted in different ways. The first is that the President is trying to play to both sides in giving in only enough to keep both sides from completely turning against him. Another interpretation is that this needed to be put on the backburner while other issues were dealt with first.
Speaking of delays (and gay rights for that matter) ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Remains in Effect Months After Passage of Law to End It. Regardless of the legislation passed to repeal ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ the system in place that discharges gays from the military is still in operation. Part of the reason is that the legislation only creates the mechanism for actually repealing the act. In the meantime, policies and regulations need to be put in place that insures that the military can properly fight and recruit before the act can be fully repealed. Are such policies needed? In the meantime there are people who are still under investigation and who face possible discharge for being gay. It seems that the system, though still in place should have a freeze on investigations to prevent people from being discharged under a system that is on its way out. To lose people in a transition period in this way is very unfortunate and appears to be avoidable.
The issues about homosexuality in our society is one that is fraught with contention. Both sides are unwilling to budge. Should it be this way? Homosexuality, regardless of whether or not it is a choice should be something that someone can embrace without fear of reprisal from others. The country and the world are filled with people from a variety of beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds. To put someone down for who they are and prevent them from being who they are is something that we have no right to do. The United States revolves around freedom and to deny others that freedom because we are threatened or do not understand who they are reveals an ignorance and it is beneath us. We have the freedom to disagree with others but to take that to a level of flat out denying them to live their lives as they see fit is not freedom and we have gone to war with those who practice such repression. In our biases and our narrow beliefs are we no better than they are?
5 comments:
My gay friends are celebrating the President's decision. Of course the Right is outraged that the President and the Justice Department are not defending a US law. Should they be able to pick and choose which laws they will defend?
Beautifully written, Justin. Did you see the news today that the White House has hired its first gay male Social Secretary? That should add to the policy confusion, eh?
But beyond that, I think we might need to discuss the fact that sometimes policy generated in one location in government comes up against the power of another branch of government - specifically, the Judicial Branch.
Per the current Supreme Court test of constitutionality in place, homosexual citizens are in the semi-suspect category for discrimination. This means that unlike discrimination based on the color of one's skin which is automatically assumed to be unconstitutional and examined under such light, discrimination against homosexuals is not assumed to be unconstitutional. This makes it much harder for gay rights to be protected or argued for with the same weight as other discrimination cases.
In my opinion, until the Supreme Court sees gay people and women as equal to straight men and men of color, we'll continue to endure these kinds of problems. I think we need leadership from the Courts.
You address an important issue that many americans are picking sides over, and i think that the gay community made a crucial step with the presidents decision.
You address an important issue that many americans are picking sides over, and i think that the gay community made a crucial step with the presidents decision.
I couldn't agree more, Justin. It's so frustrating to see all of the religious sides attacking homosexuals for the right to "marry," but they're simply defending a word. They don't want the word, they want the meaning. I've never been able to understand the close-mindedness of people within this country when we are supposedly the "land of the free." That's only true if you're who they expect you to be.
I personally am glad that they repealed this, honestly. The old traditional definition of marriage is and should be fading; not to mention the divorce rate among heterosexuals in this country are staggering, so why do they defend it all so blindly?
No one should ever be denied the right to do what makes them happy. The people that are constantly attacking homosexuals and their lifestyle are also attacking their right to happiness. Love is love, no matter who or how you love. When they equate homosexuality to bestiality it makes me shutter to think that people honestly think in that fashion, still.
Marriage should not be reserved for a man and a woman, nor should it be reserved for religious folks. Marriage SHOULD be between two people who love one another, and firmly believe in their future together. Gender should be a moot point in the matters of the heart, and others should have no say in the matter.
Good for Obama; he's going to get more heat than he deserves for this, but I believe it's in good taste and will have a ripple effect for the good of homosexuals around the country.
Post a Comment