President Obama supports the repeal of DADT, but the (Obama administration) Justice Department defended the law before Judge Phillips. The White House says that the legal filing by the Justice Department is a part of government procedure by defending an act of Congress that is being challenged. They say it does not detract from the president's efforts to get DADT repealed. Though...it kind of does, if we're being honest here. I know it's procedural for the Justice Department to defend an act of Congress, it's just too bad that an administration that supports the repeal is further holding it up.
Last week the Justice Department objected to the injunction to stop the DADT policy. The Justice Department said that immediately ending the military's ban might harm military readiness as we're in a time of war (they do realize that ending a ban on openly gay service members means more people could be in the military, right? You know, like the kind of people that actually want to serve, but they can't because they're openly gay). The Justice Department urged that the injunction should be limited only to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans that brought this case before the court (in other words, only gay service members belonging to the Log Cabin Republicans will be affected). The Justice Department also urged Judge Phillips to wait until the Pentagon completes a study on how to integrate gay people into the ranks (Um, they're already in the ranks. All you have to do is not fire them simply for coming out. There, study complete). The Justice Department attorneys said that Congress is debating this issue and that Judge Phillips would be overstepping her bounds if she halted a policy under debate in Congress. (Full Story) (Full Story)
In another case, a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington (U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton) heard the case of a U.S. Air Force flight nurse. Major Margaret Witt was dismissed after coming out as a lesbian. She joined the Air Force in 1987 and was suspended in 2004, just short of retirement. She sued to get her job back. Her lawyers argued that the flight nurse had outstanding performance in the service, and that her sexuality never caused any problems in her unit. Air Force attorneys argued that DADT has to be uniformly obeyed in order to maintain morale and order in the military. Judge Leighton ordered that the flight nurse should be reinstated "at the earliest possible moment." If she returns to the military, she will be the first person allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military as a gay person. (Full Story) (Full Story)
Last week, the Senate took up the DADT repeal, but the effort was stalled. Not a single Republican sided with the Democrats in order to begin debate on the defense authorization bill that included the repeal. One reason Republicans were against the defense authorization bill is that an amendment was attached that would grant legal status to young immigrants who attend college or join the military. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is the one Republican that supported the repeal in the Armed Services Committee, but she was opposed to the defense authorization bill because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) limited the number of amendments that could be offered (though Reid said he would work with Republicans to allow amendments). So, she was opposed to it on procedural grounds.
It's so disheartening when legislation is stalled because of procedural issues -- not that it got voted down, but that it's not even able to get to the point of a vote. It reminds me of when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) got so upset that Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against a bill that would provide health care and compensation for 9/11 rescue workers that became sick as a result of their rescue efforts. Republicans had voted against it for procedural reasons (Democrats employed a procedural move that wouldn't allow amendments. They didn't want excessively partisan amendments tacked on to delay or kill the bill. As a result, they needed a two-thirds majority to pass the bill) and it didn't pass. Rep. Weiner had an outburst on the floor and said that members often say 'oh we want amendments and debate'...and then they still vote no. He continued, "And then they stand up and say 'oh if only we had a different process, we'd vote yes.' You vote yes if you believe yes! You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing!" It's extremely unfortunate that Congress has not yet repealed DADT, and even more unfortunate that the legislation has stalled. (Full Story)
The Texas State Board of Education has been at it again! Last week they adopted a (nonbinding) resolution that urges textbook publishers not to provide a pro-Islamic (or Islamic-biased) viewpoint in world history textbooks. The board members in favor of this resolution are worried about world history textbooks having too much Middle Eastern influence, and there's a fear of textbooks pushing a "pro-Islamic, anti-Christian" viewpoint. They say textbooks are devoting more lines of text to Islam than to Christianity. First of all, this is world history textbooks we're talking about...and 68-71% of the world's population is not of the Christian faith. Second of all, what textbooks are they actually referring to? I have been out of school for a few years, so maybe things have drastically changed, but I highly doubt American textbooks are even coming close to presenting a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint. Does mere mention of the Islamic faith qualify as being pro-Islamic, anti-Christian?
The resolution also claims that "more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are doing now." Yeah, that would be really terrible if a single group of textbook-buyers had the ability to influence textbook content and have the content reflect their personal beliefs... Oh, you know, kind of like...the Texas State Board of Education. It's funny that they call the textbook industry an oligopoly, when it's their socially conservative board that wields huge influence and power in the textbook industry. The Texas school system is so large that if Texas urges textbook publishers to make changes in textbooks, they often will. This then affects the textbooks available to other states. Thus, the Texas revisions have national implications. Furthermore, in response to their above quote, I can't imagine Middle Eastern countries looking to buy American textbooks have a huge amount of influence on what textbook material is published.
And I love how "religious discrimination" pretty much equals "we feel there's not enough stuff on Christianity." And let's be clear, this board is not a principled proponent of equal coverage for all religions. That's not the real issue here. They're not complaining that Buddhism or Hinduism doesn't get as much coverage as Christianity, for example. They wouldn't complain about Christianity getting more lines of text than Islam. The issue here is of course Christianity -- their faith. And they want their faith to get more attention -- or, they don't want their faith to lose attention to other religions. This is an issue of fear -- fear of "outsiders", fear of immigrants, fear of the changing nature of America that is moving away from the domination of white Christians. This resolution reflects the terrible trend in this country of anti-Muslim rhetoric. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment