Lounge of Tomorrow - Gay Apartheid

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Lounge Lizard (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

- - Gay Apartheid (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=9693)

Nope, Fed law does NOT trump Fed Constitution. Or, if it conflicts with other Fed law that it does not actually repeal, then the judiciary decides the matter.

Ok that's getting too complicated for me.

Good luck, Massachusetts!

Well yay for the great state of Massachussetts!

Hello, California???

Pffft California is near the bottom of the socially liberal heap these days.

Why do all the liberal places in the world have that horrible Winter thing?

So you can get all snuggy warm with your boi-toy, silly.

On Rachel Maddow’s show last night, Representative Alcee Hastings (D, FL) claims the White House pressured him to drop an amendment which would have prevented funding for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell investigations.

What’s President Fierce Advocate up to?
　
　
The Service Members Legal Defense Network’s Communications Director responds:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Nix

We hope it’s not true the White House pressured Rep. Hastings to withdraw his amendment to stop funding "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" investigations. Such a move would go against President Obama’s commitment to end "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Now, we need to see some positive action, some follow through from this White House. The Commander in Chief has a key leadership role in ending this bad law. He should publicly endorse the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), that overturns DADT. The President and Congress need to get on the same page and same timeline in ending DADT and both need to act with a sense of urgency. Service members are getting fired literally every day just because they are gay or lesbian, and our national security is at risk because we’re losing some of the best and brightest linguists, medics, pilots, and intelligence analysts under this archaic law.

Looks like it's time for a beer, that's what I says, says me.

I'm confused. DADT investigations are bad - right? So - not funding those would be good then - right? And an amendment to stop funding those would also be good then - right?

Yet that doesn't seem to be the case from your comments. So - I'm missing something important or not reading that correctly then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betty (Post 293800)

The White House pressuring the Representative to drop the good amendment is bad.