Our President claims to be a “fierce advocate” for gay rights. He claims to want to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” yet every time an opportunity surfaces to actually DO something, he shoots it down. Yet when Rep. Alcee Hastings (D – FL) attempts to add an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would block spending money on DADT investigations, he is, in his own words, “thwarted” by pressure from House colleagues and the White House.
The President has said that when a bill from Congress to repeal DADT appears on his desk, he’ll sign it. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D – PA) has kicked off his tour in support of the legislation he’s sponsoring to repeal the policy. Is the President just waiting for the fruits of Murphy’s labor? Why not support the baby step of ending the persecutions? How much political capital would that spend, if the majority of Americans support repealing DADT?
Mr. President, you have a lot of explaining to do.
A lot of the problems Murphy had were the fact that it was a stupid amendment.
The same funding is used by the entire legal section of the military. It’s effectively impossible to say that money can’t be spent one investigating one crime but can be spent investigating another. It’s all from the same budget.
And before you start railing about my calling homosexuality a crime, let me remind you that it IS a crime under UCMJ and that’s the problem.
I wasn’t going to rail about you calling homosexuality a crime, as it clearly is under military codes of conduct. I welcome your comments, but please don’t put words into my mouth.
In regards to Rep. Hastings (not Murphy’s) amendment, I hadn’t heard that it would have the affect you say it will, and I’m unable to find any actual discussions of the subject online. At this stage in the news cycle, it’s mostly just about the White House putting the kibosh on the amendment, rather than the actual merits of the amendment itself. Do you have links to the sources that support your argument? I’d be interested to read them.
Sorry. I projected a bit there. I’ve been getting a fair amount of knee-jerk vitriol from the queers lately when I point out cold, hard facts to them.
As for the details of the effects of Murphy’s amendment – I’m drawing on my experience with the military and the DOJ to arrive at that conclusion.
I know for a fact that the JAG budget for investigations – both prosecutorial and defense – is all one budget, irrespective of the crime involved. There’s little or no way to separate them out.
…And, of course, Murphy’s amendment essentially said that some crimes just shouldn’t be investigated, which is an idea that I don’t like.
I’m also – as much as I despise Obama – not sure the push back came from him or the other Dems in Congress. They’d already wrongfully added the Matthew Shepard Act to that bill and may have thought Murphy’s amendment was pushing too far and was too risky.
I would expect a little vitriol when you call the core relationships of a person’s life a crime, even if it is under military law. It probably stems from a more idealistic version of the term “crime.” Ethically it is not, literally it is, and those involved have a lot invested in changing that. Calling it a crime can be seen to validate that position. It’s the sort of coded word that’s going to bring about a knee-jerk reaction because the emotions tied to it run so high.
I’ve read some snippets from your blog, and I’ve gathered that you’re against hate crime legislation. I’m uncomfortable with it myself, however, federalizing a crime can bring in proper prosecution when, due to bias, the local authorities are disinclined to investigate and prosecute. The motivation for a crime is a factor in gauging the severity of a crime in murder cases. So why not apply motivation as a factor in other cases?
I don’t much fancy the idea of criminalizing someone’s prejudices, however. A beating is a beating, and should it really matter if the beating occured over the victim’s race or their wallet? I’m still thinking it through, and there are compelling arguments on both sides.
I’m leaning towards the idea that the White House and Congress quashed the Hastings amendment so that when the Murphy measure goes through the house, there’s nothing that can trip it up. One bill, from Congress, with no taint of Presidential abuses of power.
You and I disagree on Obama, and though I’m irritated at the delay in the DOMA and DADT repeals, I am essentially a supporter. I do like hearing other people’s opinions though, and I’m glad you posted.
A crime is a crime. If homosexuality was a crime under USMJ, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There’s no sense in ignoring the core of the issue is there?
Yes, I’m against – virulently against – hate crimes laws. Not only are they un-American, they’re stupid. The basis for them was that the states weren’t enforcing the laws on the books. Adding a law is going to to fix that?
Under normal law, motive only goes towards whether the crime was premeditated or not. It does not criminalize the reasons for the crime.
You and I disagree on Obama, but I’m irritated at the delay in the DOMA (2nd half only of the Act in my case) and DADT repeals. I understand though, that in the case of DOMA, Obama – in the form of the AG’s office – is required to defend the current statute.
TYPO! Should have been, “If homosexuality WASN’T a crime under USMJ…”