<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Appeals court dismisses &#8216;Don&#8217;t Ask&#8217; litigation as moot</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/29/appeals-court-dismisses-dont-ask-litigation-as-moot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/29/appeals-court-dismisses-dont-ask-litigation-as-moot/</link>
	<description>the gay community&#039;s news source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:32:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Bedwell</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/29/appeals-court-dismisses-dont-ask-litigation-as-moot/#comment-30737</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bedwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=29384#comment-30737</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Continuing to defend DADT required Obama, Inc., to, yet again, contradict themselves:

Last February, in the process of explaining their total reversal on fighting DOMA cases, US Attorney General Eric Holder said on behalf of Obama: “[The Supreme Court] has rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria THAT SHOULD INFORM THIS AND ANY OTHER JUDGMENT as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s ‘ability to perform or contribute to society’. … Indeed, WHEN THE COURT RULED THAT GENDER-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS WERE SUBJECT TO HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY, WOMEN ALREADY HAD WON MAJOR POLITICAL VICTORIES such as the Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).” 

OF COURSE, that was “any other judgment” except one about DADT. Barack Obama can twist himself in so many ways he could star in his own Cirque du Soleil show. Rationally, logically one can’t have it both ways—unless one is the military and a Democratic President is just as willing to be your two-faced Piss Boy as every Repug President has. 

Barack the Ripper—stabbing tens of thousands of gays who were discharged in the back by declaring that those who wrote DADT were right—they DID hurt their country’s national security—and doing the same thing to any currently serving who imagined that with repeal would come equal treatment IN the military. Now the miitary can continue to deny them the same protections against harassment and discrimination in, e.g., assignments, evaluations, promotions, that blacks, women, et al. have, AND their partners benefits NOT banned by DOMA. And, of course, cutting to shreds the ONLY thing that could have prevented a future Repug President or Congress from bringing back some form of the ban. 

“At what point do we say ‘ENOUGH’? At what point do we stand up and say we will not allow it to happen anymore? Enough is enough!” – Harvey Milk.
 
Today is that day for me. Only if Christ appears in a burning bush and guarantees me that, otherwise, whatever Repug will win will I vote for Barack Obama next year.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Continuing to defend DADT required Obama, Inc., to, yet again, contradict themselves:</p>
<p>Last February, in the process of explaining their total reversal on fighting DOMA cases, US Attorney General Eric Holder said on behalf of Obama: “[The Supreme Court] has rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria THAT SHOULD INFORM THIS AND ANY OTHER JUDGMENT as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s ‘ability to perform or contribute to society’. … Indeed, WHEN THE COURT RULED THAT GENDER-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS WERE SUBJECT TO HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY, WOMEN ALREADY HAD WON MAJOR POLITICAL VICTORIES such as the Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).” </p>
<p>OF COURSE, that was “any other judgment” except one about DADT. Barack Obama can twist himself in so many ways he could star in his own Cirque du Soleil show. Rationally, logically one can’t have it both ways—unless one is the military and a Democratic President is just as willing to be your two-faced Piss Boy as every Repug President has. </p>
<p>Barack the Ripper—stabbing tens of thousands of gays who were discharged in the back by declaring that those who wrote DADT were right—they DID hurt their country’s national security—and doing the same thing to any currently serving who imagined that with repeal would come equal treatment IN the military. Now the miitary can continue to deny them the same protections against harassment and discrimination in, e.g., assignments, evaluations, promotions, that blacks, women, et al. have, AND their partners benefits NOT banned by DOMA. And, of course, cutting to shreds the ONLY thing that could have prevented a future Repug President or Congress from bringing back some form of the ban. </p>
<p>“At what point do we say ‘ENOUGH’? At what point do we stand up and say we will not allow it to happen anymore? Enough is enough!” – Harvey Milk.</p>
<p>Today is that day for me. Only if Christ appears in a burning bush and guarantees me that, otherwise, whatever Repug will win will I vote for Barack Obama next year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/29/appeals-court-dismisses-dont-ask-litigation-as-moot/feed/ ) in 1.17807 seconds, on May 22nd, 2013 at 3:01 pm UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 22nd, 2013 at 4:01 pm UTC -->