Explain this to me like I'm 5

[XemaSab]

Exactly which constituents and fellow Democrats will Obama alienate by repealing DADT and supporting gay marriage?

How will giving gay people the right to serve their country and marry each other result in the loss of political power on the part of the democrats?

Please use specifics, because I don't get the triangulation on this issue. :shrug:

[Warpy]

1. Southern Democrats, although they generally vote GOP

The ones who didn't the last election will be all fired up by their preachers to vote against the ungodly Muslim this time, count on it.

Of course, they'll likely do that anyway, so he might as well honor the constitution and do what's right for the country.

[XemaSab]

15. And which southern states is he in danger of losing

that he won in 2008? :P

[Warpy]

25. NC for one.

[bertman]

47. I'm from NC and he's pretty much lost me anyway. I've been a Democrat

for over 40 years, but I'm fed up with the DLC style that President Obama has adopted.

I voted for someone who would stand for change. So far, I see little of that.

Why this is even framed as a "we could lose ConservaDem votes" issue is beyond me. I thought Democrats were the party that stood for equal human rights for all.

I find his twisting and turning on this issue to be despicable and cowardly.

[Warpy]

48. Do you honestly believe McCain would have done better?

That's really the question.

Obama has disappointed everybody who listened to the rhetoric and believed it. He hasn't disappointed me all that much because he hasn't made anything worse and he's managed to make a few things marginally better.

The problem is really the Senate. It's overdue for a housecleaning. That conservative gerontocracy in both parties has got to go.

[frylock]

49. mccain lost..

that's the REAL answer.

[liberation]

75. Hey, come on! The rules of n-dimensional chess clearly state that alternative time lines are OK

That is the beauty of that game. You never lose, you can always make up some alternative reality scenario in which you win.

[bertman]

82. NO, it is not really the question, Warpy. The question is why do the

Democrats act like Republicans.

McCain LOST because people wanted to see major change. We believed that President Obama would be an agent for change. Sadly, the pace of the change is glacial and the President is content to negotiate, compromise and capitulate away the political capital he came into office with.

[valerief]

85. Because of the ruling Republocrat party in this country? nt

[demwing]

90. NO, the question is whether Obama COULD have done better

not some strawman argument bringing in McCain.

[Warpy]

92. My dear, the only choice we had to exercise was between

Obama and McCain. That is still the only relevant choice.

Yes, Obama has disappointed a lot of people. However, they need to reflect on how much a McCain presidency would have done for or against them over the last two years.

[demwing]

105. That WAS the only question we had, now we have others

The 2008 election is over. Now we must decide not whether our previous votes were well cast, but whether our next votes will be.

[demigoddess]

91. we won't get rid of the DLC style until we have had a string of dem

presidents and a majority in the house and senate more than just one 2 year session. it takes time to marginalize the repubs enough to get things passed, especially progressive things. We need to keep at it, over and over, until the republican party is so small we can drown it in a bathtub.

[grahamhgreen]

89. I'm a southern democrat, and the only way he's losing me is by being to far to the right. nt

[mdmc]

2. lots of people hate gays and vote democratic

By not catering to bigotry, we lose..

[Tesha]

13. "By not catering to bigotry, we lose"????

Are you kidding? Well, Hell, why don't we go
whole-hog and come out against Negroes, Hispanics,
and maybe the Irish, too! Let's get bigoted against
everyone! We could be just like Southern Republicans!

If you were serious, it goes a long ways towards
explaining why so may Democratic politicians
aren't worth spit any more.

Tesha

[mdmc]

83. OP asked

I gave it my best shot..

[ooglymoogly]

93. +! nt

[LostinVA]

53. omfg

[racaulk]

74. As long as Dems keep winning, that's all that matters.

Apparently.

:wtf:

[ooglymoogly]

94. From the mouths of idiots. no text needed

[flvegan]

3. It will upset the bigots in our party.

Keep the bigot vote and hope the GLBT voters shut the fuck up and vote Democrat anyway since Republicans would be far worse (which, for many reasons they would be).

Or something. I don't understand the whole mess either.

[Canuckistanian]

28. Is the bigot demographic bigger than the GLBT demographic?

I would rather take my chances and piss off the bigots if I were the President.

AND, he might be remembered in history as a groundbreaking president.

At the rate he's going, he'll be remembered as well as president Tyler (I think that's how his name is spelled).

[flvegan]

29. DKDC. I'd far rather he piss off the bigots.

The GLBT demographic is one of the big reasons I voted for Kucinich.

[Canuckistanian]

31. Yup. It's just the right thing to do

And that's the ONLY reason to change things.

[Ignis]

66. Bingo. And those fuckers have no place in our party.

I don't care how big the tent is, bigots belong on the outside.

[ooglymoogly]

100. It is comments like this that have made the Democratic

party lose its honor and the trust of the voting public; And a laughing stock, no different than the hypocrites calling themselves republicans including those Dino's calling themselves Democrats.

The question here is; What is right? Not what is politically expedient or pragmatic.

If Dr Kinsey was right in his influential Kinsey Reports that shocked the world; That one in ten men are homosexual, and 15.3% of men are most likely homosexual to one degree or another; And that one in six admit to more than one homosexual experience. Somewhat mirrored in the female population;

These folks with their families and friends

are a demographic not to be fucked with; Compound by the fact that Homosexuals have educated themselves to the importance of voting; Always and consistently and also is a demographic who control a large part of overall disposable income; A fact bearing directly on financial and political support.

This administration's undemocratic treatment of this powerful demographic is a lose lose probability compound by this administrations oblique turn to the right. Now couple that with its treatment of the elderly who will not vote democratic if harmed as this administration stupidly believes and as in the MA election of Brown, losing Kennedy's seat and others proves; A direct result of these undemocratic policies; And you have lost many of the elections coming down the pike including 2012.

[slackmaster]

4. Go wash your mouth out with soap. You're grounded for the evening.

:hi:

[XemaSab]

17. .

:D

[TheKentuckian]

5. But, but then we won't win over TeaPubliKlan and win 80 to 20 in 2012

[county worker]

6. Gay marriage is an issue to be decided by the courts so I don't think it

results in a loss of political power. What Obama thinks about it is not an issue to me.

DADT is another thing since it is Congress that has to decide the issue. I guess that if you like DADT you will be upset if it goes away and maybe not vote for anyone who supported it's repeal.

[FreeState]

10. It should be an issue to you though

because in the Courts the anti-gay family lawyers cite Obama's position on Gay Marriage left and right - and it DOES hurt us. Public opinion does way on the court - and Obama and every other elected official can help move the public on these issues by being vocally supportive of all.

[Caliman73]

62. The thing is that Obama can take some of the heat off of Congress for the mid term...

by suspending DADT by executive order of the Commander in Chief just like Truman integrated the military by order over objection. Congress can then write up the repeal after the midterms.

[Skittles]

7. sending 5 year old XemaSab ass to the Greatest Page

yes INDEED

[XemaSab]

18. Why thank you

:D

[Autumn]

8. I can't explain it to you,

I don't get it myself. It isn't like they are going to give him votes because he stood against the big bad gays. K/R

[Bitwit1234]

9. I think the Democrats have got to get tougher on challenging

the republicans on all their prejudiced ways. Until we put out foot down and tell them to suck it up, they will continue to rule the roost on every outmoded and out dated actions in this country.

There is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with a man/man or woman/woman marriage. As long as they love each other why should other people care. Just look at the common actions of REPUBLICAN ENSIGN, committing adultery on his wife, the same goes for REPUBLICAN SANFORD, REPUBLICAN GINGRICH. There are too many republicans right now who have vilified the sanction of marriage I can't list them all, so what in the hell gives any of them the right to try to deny someone else marriage.

[Uzybone]

11. I think most if not all of us disagree with the President on this

who cares about the politics...its wrong.

[zeemike]

12. I will take a stab at it.

Gay are in the minority...10 to 20% I would guess...and there are another 30% that don't care if people are gay or not....and the other half are christians that are told it is a sin....some of those are democrats and vote that way....
So what is a plotter to do if he wants to win....split them on wedge issues like DADT or gay issues.
And so the closer we get to November the more this will come up. So I would expect to see some real in-your-christian-face things happen about October.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. If half of them were Christians why are they not opposing

divorce or seeking law against adultery? Where are the calls against usury, against lying? I am sorry but people claim to be many things. I see scant evidence of any form of faith in America. Jesus said that which you do to a prisoner, you do to him. That about settles what America thinks about Jesus, if you ask me. We got prisoners, alright, some without trial, some in secret places, we have tortured our prisoners, who are Jesus, according to Jesus.
So sure, they are Christians. And I am a Speedo Model Millionaire.

[Pisces]

27. All of the things you brought up are Christian hypocrisies, however, the gay issue

is something that makes Christians go crazy. I think because it involves sex, and the fear that one of their children could be gay, or influenced to be gay. There is no way to rationalize it as you are
talking about the irrational.

God also said thou shalt not kill, yet most Christians are gung ho military, gun advocates.

[readmoreoften]

33. Adultery also deals with sex. So do strip clubs and heterosexual double anal videos.

Also, the whole straight culture of going to the bars to get some. Pop music songs about girls giving blow jobs. None of these have become political issues.

But I don't see any Christian political hysteria around strip clubs or straight porn. Oh sure, they're "against it". Some of them even protest them. But they haven't made it into a political issue.

GUESS THAT'S CUZ THEY'RE NO MINORITIES TO HATE. Interrational marriage? Political hot potato of the 60s because of "dirty sex". Gay marriage? Political hot potato because of "dirty sex." Songs called "promiscuous girl"--hey! at least she's a straight girl, no need to fuss about it.

[AnArmyVeteran]

84. What about shellfish? In Leviticus being gay is the same as eating an oyster.

As Jim Trafficant used to say, "Beam me up Scotty!"

[LostinVA]

56. 2-3% of the US population are Jewish

So, by your logic, it's okay to have anti-semitic laws.

[sam sarrha]

79. ..explain your logic please... so we should let a minority pass Draconian laws for a majority non

believers to keep from hurting their God's peelings..

so you want non believers to live under a Draconian Theocracy.. well great, because here comes Sharia Law.!! with 442 things you can get the death penalty for, no court, no paper work.

if you let even 1 law pass on purely religious reasons you open a back door to HELL.

in Uganda today they are passing anti Gay legislation, the genocide has already started.. Vigilantes are already killing gays for GOD..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129422524
"snip...Among the proposals in the bill: prison terms for Ugandans who fail to report a homosexual within 24 hours; lifelong prison sentences for a single homosexual act; and the death sentence for a range of acts, including having gay sex while HIV-positive, having gay sex with a disabled person or being classified as a "serial offender" — that is, someone who has gay sex more than once...snip"

[LostinVA]

95. What in the HELL are you talking about???

I'm not exactly a homophobe, and have no idea why you think I am.

Good grief.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Older more conservative Americans

who actually vote in off year elections.

[Prism]

19. Pelosi is willing to put her Speakership on the line

She wanted a flat-out repeal, no strings, no studies, no delays. She was prepared to lead the House to that end. The White House begged her not to, and instead forced this ridiculous, ever-delaying compromise.

If Speaker Pelosi is willing to risk her job on these issues during the midterms, the very least the President can do is not openly oppose her.

What does President Obama see in the midterms that Speaker Pelosi does not? Arguably, she has a lot more skin in this election than he does.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I fully agree... it should have been done

oh over a year ago... which would also have neutralized those same older, more conservative voters since memory is short in this country. It would also have brought a few more of those younger voters that usually stay home by the way.

But I just answered what the calculation is, which was the OP's question.

I don't agree, but there you have it.

[XemaSab]

23. Kicking the can down the road

never looks good. :P

[Egnever]

38. Pelosi represents San Fransisco

She is hardly putting her job on the line with this stance.

[Prism]

44. She is putting her speakership on the line

If Republicans take over the House - a real possibility - she will no longer be Speaker of the House.

She supports it anyway.

[laughingliberal]

80. +1 nt

[demwing]

106. You're right - Boner as Speaker has it's benefits

WTF?

Somebody smack me.

[Moonwalk]

65. I'll tell you exactly what Obama sees in Midterms that Pelosi does not...

First, Obama wants a majority in house and senate to pass bills he wants to pass without filibusters AND most important, pass his supreme court nominees. THIS, by the way, is very important. Let's get this straight folks. I'm in full agreement that 1 + 1 = 2. Rights and rights and should not be denied. But we're not doing math. We're playing a game of chess. And in a game of chess, you give up pieces to get bigger pieces in hopes of winning the game.

Is Obama's strategy right? I honestly don't know. I don't know if it is a strategy, I don't know what kind of strategy it is, I don't know if it will work or fail. BUT I do know this...if I were going to try to win rights for gays, I wouldn't rely on democratic votes. The population has proved, time and again, that the majority doesn't like the idea of gays marrying (never mind the logic, there is none), and/or can be swayed into sticking with anti-gay status quo.

The courts are the way to go. To enlarge the probably of judicial appointments that favor progressive views (or at least don't favor conservative views) we need a democratic POTUS for as long as possible--to be there if, say, Clarence Thomas keels over dead one morning. Meaning eight years. By all means, support progressives and get them locally elected. Get them voted in as representatives, then, if possible, Senators. Little by little, let's get one to run for President and win, as Obama is not a progressive. Franken got in; we can get in more and more and change things. But however you feel about Obama, and I'm certainly disappointed in him as well, keep this in mind:

Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas
Justice Roberts
Justice Alto
Justice Kennedy

Lifetime appointments made by Republican presidents. If Obama loses that second term you can look forward to more such justices should anything happen to those currently seated. Obama is trying to make sure he gets that second term. He maybe selling his soul to do it, but that's what he wants. And, love him or hate him, he's the best chance at keeping the POTUS a democrat that we've got. What matters most is who gets to sit and judge the constitutionality of laws like DOMA. This game is long term. In the case of the Supreme Court, VERY long term.

[Prism]

76. At what point can LGBTers have permission to pressure for their rights?

Since there is an election every two years, every two years we're told now is not the right time. Every election, without fail.

If it is never the right time for these things, when can we have them? How much support from the electorate is required before it becomes the right time? 60%? 70% It can't be those, because the President has that kind of approval for things like ENDA and DADT repeal.

Is the answer 80%? Do we need 80% support on equality before we can shift a Democratic President off his ass?

I'd like an answer for this so I at least know what we're aiming for here.

[Moonwalk]

102. Don't put words into my mouth, please. I NEVER said you, or anyone else--

did not have the right to pressure for their rights. Threaten--and as I said, get your own candidates, vote them in small, vote them in higher, vote them up to Senate. Vote in every candidate you can every two years--if you can. Did we or did we NOT get Franken in? And is he or is he NOT for gay rights? How about Pelosi? How about a lot of others fighting for gay rights, gay marriages? Did they come out of nowhere or did you, did we NOT have something to do with it? And if enough of them say, "This is part of our democratic agenda," might not some vote with their party even if they personally don't agree? Thus getting votes even from those not wholly in favor?

It is ALWAYS the right time to pressure, protest and demand that you get your rights. But wisdom is doing what will not only get you the most that can be gotten now, but will ensure that both you and future generations do not lose it again. Justices on that supreme court will last longer than any president. If we end up with another Bush, I want to make sure they stop him from fucking not just gays, but everyone else in the country. They didn't do so this time around; they aided and abetted him and they're still doing it.

Demand a fix...but demand that it be a good and lasting fix, not one that quick and created just to shut you up and ease the pressure. I speak as a Californian who watched gay couples marry for four glorious months before losing rights that they ought to have been able to keep forever. I don't want to see Obama remove gay roadblocks, only to have a republican president put them back in because the removal was quick and sloppy.

[readmoreoften]

34. Well, maybe if the gay voters don't vote in election years, a message will be sent.

Apparently, withholding your vote makes you a really hot political commodity, so I don't know why I should give mine away. All the bigots hold onto theirs like its virginity.

[rug]

20. Some people believe - put that down - that doing the right thing - come back here -

will make other people mad - no you can't go to the bathroom - so they don't do what - leave the cat alone - they know is right. Stop crying.

[grantcart]

22. lol but maybe he would be easier to talk to if you let him go 'tinkle'

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Got nothing for you. nt

[rucky]

26. Does Pentagon brass count as a constituent?

because I think they have enough influence and maliciousness in them to put Obama in the pickle he's in.

[Danger Mouse]

30. Nobody who matters.

There's your answer.

[yowzayowzayowza]

32. Cuz Conservative Crotch politics werkz on the mushy middle that...

determine elections in this country. Ugly, unfortunate, but true. Obama getting out in front on the issue would be handing Repukes a whopper of an issue against the Party and every Democratic candidate ... kinda like the pos'n Reed found himself in when Obama got out in front on the mosque issue.

[Radical Activist]

35. Probably the same Democrats who voted for Hillary because she wasn't black.

Mostly in rural areas.

[McCamy Taylor]

40. And the ones who voted for Obama because he has a penis.

[LostinVA]

58. People against GLBT rights didn't vote for Hillary

:wtf:

[Radical Activist]

61. lol

I hate to break this to you but I volunteered for Obama in Iowa, Ohio and Indiana. So I know from first hand experience that your assumption is untrue.

[unapatriciated]

71. I hate to break it to you, but I volunteered for Obama in Georgia

and those who thought like you suggest voted mc same. The reasons I came across for indecision was due to their similarities in policy not gender or race.

[LostinVA]

97. Thank you -- homophobes didn't vote for Clinton

They voted for McCain.

[LostinVA]

96. lol

Wrong.

I bet Donnie McC voted for President Obama, btw.

[Autumn]

67. I live in a rual area in Colorado

Hillary had a very small number caucusing for her, the majority in our precinct caucused for Obama.

[Radical Activist]

68. Good for them!

[Autumn]

69. Rural areas are not all the same,

just saying.

[Radical Activist]

70. I never claimed they were.

[Unvanguard]

36. Economically moderate or center-left social conservatives.

E.g. evangelicals troubled by war and concerned about social justice (except when it pertains to equality for gays and women.) And, yes, there are plenty of people like that.

However, I am somewhat skeptical that same-sex marriage specifically, at this point, touches enough of a nerve in anyone but the particularly fanatical as to make that much of a political difference. Don't Ask Don't Tell certainly does not; the issue there is the Senate, not voters.

[Radical Activist]

37. Gay marriage is a GOTV tool for Republicans.

You're right that it's only the far right that get worked up about it. Republicans use the marriage referendums to make sure the Southern Baptists and assorted religious crazies show up to vote. It isn't about appealing to moderates.

[Unvanguard]

41. Specifically, constitutional amendments supposedly have been.

I'm not sure that's the case; even if they do increase turnout, they may do so in ways that end up being a wash for Republicans (not all opponents of same-sex marriage vote Republican, and nearly all supporters do not.) Regardless, getting people out to vote on a constitutional amendment actively being put before the voters is a far cry from getting them out to vote against a presidential candidate whose concrete power over same-sex marriage in any given state is nonexistent. Further, public opinion has shifted substantially since 2004, and the ranks of the committed look different: the momentum has shifted from the backlash against Goodridge to people who have come to recognize the absurdity of the opposition.

[Radical Activist]

42. It absolutely is the case that they were done for that reason.

Gay marriage amendments were on the ballot in Southern states in 2004 and 2006 for only one reason. It was part of the Republican GOTV strategy. California is the odd exception. Usually they did it in Southern states where there's very little downside.

Things are changing now and attitudes will keep changing. But there's really no question about why these drives existed.

[Unvanguard]

55. That doesn't mean that the tactic worked.

And I don't think that was the only reason; people were worried (probably without reason) that state court challenges would legalize same-sex marriage. That's why statutory same-sex marriage bans were not thought sufficient.

[Recursion]

45. The issue is the voters who will or won't re-elect some Democratic senators

There's no big industry pressuring the western Democratic Senators not to repeal DADT. But there are voters in their states who may choose not to re-elect those Senators if they voted to repeal DADT.

[Unvanguard]

57. DADT repeal polls very well.

I don't know about local fluctuations, but as far as the national political scene goes, the Democrats have very little to lose in terms of public opinion by pushing on that. It might even hurt the Republicans by portraying them as the proponents of obsolete bigotry that they are.

[Recursion]

60. But Max Baucus doesn't get elected nationally

He gets elected by Montana.

[Unvanguard]

64. We are talking past one another, I think.

I'm not disputing that. It could well be that some of the reluctance among the "centrist" Democratic senators has to do with public opinion in their states. What my original post suggested was simply that, from the standpoint of Obama and the Democratic leadership (not those individual senators), public opinion favors them; they adopted the compromises to keep those hold-out senators in line, not to appease public sentiment nationally.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. He is afraid he will motivate more right wingers to vote than lefties.

"No gay marriage" has been a huge success for the RW which coattails its candidates and legislation on anti-gay referendums. The DNC is afraid that doing something positive for gays will backfire by making more people votes "values" rather than pocketbook.

This is analogous to the old days, when Dems hesitated to do anything to help Blacks for fear of changing economic Democrat votes to cross over racist votes.

[Touchdown]

43. Which reminds me of an old racist remark.

What do white gentlemen call a respected African American doctor when he leaves the room?

It doesn't matter what he gives them. He's still a muslim communist from Kenya.

[glitch]

46. They can't even hear his concessions, their wurlitzer is playing full blast and they sit up front nt

[colsohlibgal]

50. Some, But Less Each Year.

Stephanie Miller on her show this morning referred to a poll which shows that with people under the age of 30 a majority in every state, including the red ones, support gay marriage etc. I haven't seen it and don't remember which poll it was, but it wouldn't shock me. We basically need one more generation of people, predominately men, to pass on and be replaced with newly minted 20 somethings, one more generational rotation.

[Arby]

51. Unfortunately there remains

too many in the US who adhere to the "man-woman" definition of marriage. The attached map clarifies the magnitude of what's at stake for the POTUS and the battle for equal rights:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112448663

[LostinVA]

59. The Majority of people didn't want Blacks to have citizenship or vote

Or women to vote.

[LostinVA]

52. ooooooooooo snap

[Solly Mack]

54. k/r

[dorkulon]

63. Old people. /nt

[unapatriciated]

72. He will gain my $ and time if he repeals DADT

right now all he has is me holding my nose while I pull the D lever.


on edit k&R

[4lbs]

73. Tell me again what power President Obama has to permanently repeal DADT?

The answer: none.

A signing statement or executive order? Can't do those. An EO that violates current law is inherently invalid.

DADT is law, so President Obama can't simply issue an EO.

He also can't issue an EO barring expulsions from the military for being gay/lesbian. DADT has exemptions which allow the military to expel personnel because they are gay. So, any EO barring such would also violate established law and be invalid.

But wait, you say, Truman signed an EO that desegegrated the troops!

True. However, back in the 1940s, there was no established law passed by Congress that mandated that troops be segregated. It was just common military practice, not established law.

DADT is established law. An EO won't work at all. Any EO that strikes at DADT will be challenged in court, all the way to the USSC, and then you know what happens? The still-Republican dominated USSC would affirm DADT, strike down the EO, and that only strengthens DADT.

The end result would make it even more difficult to overturn/repeal DADT.

You want DADT overturned? So do I.

The answer is to hammer Congress, not the President, on why they haven't done so.

Now, if Congress passes a law repealing/overturning DADT, and President Obama doesn't sign it, then yes, he will deserve the criticism because then he truly would be not supporting the repeal.

[liberation]

77. You already answered your question: Executive Order.

Cheers.

Yes, he could issue an Executive Order to enable a moratorium on DADT, he being the Commander in Chief and all.

Funny you should mention Truman, since when it comes to Obama his teflon coating must make the buck land somewhere else always. He is the president who can't do anything, yet he has done more than any other president... or whatever doublethink argument we're supposed to take a face value. YAwn.

[4lbs]

86. He can't issue an EO to ignore a law. I already showed why he can't.

Any EO that strikes at any part of DADT would be inherently invalid because it would go against a national law.

To be fully ironclad legal, with very little chance of the USSC mucking it up, Congress itself must pass a law that overturns DADT. Just like they did with Prohibition. Funny, why didn't FDR overturn Prohibition with an EO?

Because Prohibition was an established law, just like DADT. It required an act of Congress, not the President, to repeal it.

Any EO that FDR would have done that lessened Prohibition would have been invalid, just like any EO that lessens DADT would be invalid.

[LostinVA]

98. Obama can -- and should -- suspend DADT with the stroke of the pen

And then have Pelosi and Reid get cracking.

Pelosi promised she would put her Speakership on the line to repeal DADT.

[4lbs]

101. He can't. The day after he issues an EO, the right-wingers will challenge it in court, just like

they did the day after Judge Walker struck down Prop 8, appealing to the district court.

Then this EO is challenged as being unconstitutional because it goes against established national law. It makes it's way to the USSC (surprisingly quickly), the USSC agrees to hear the case, they rule against the EO, and then strengthen DADT.

The end result is that DADT is strengthened much more, because it's been validated by the USSC under court challenge. Full repeal is then made much more difficult.

That's what would happen if President Obama does the EO.

[LostinVA]

103. Not true

And, it has been explained WHY, legally, on here at least a hundred times.

[4lbs]

104. Ok then. Explain how a Presidential EO, which would go against an established national law, survive

a challenge in the USSC.

I missed those hundred explanations.

So, explain it for the supposedly 101st time.

[laughingliberal]

81. " hammer Congress, not the President"

Doesn't work. As already discussed, Pelosi was prepared to go full bore for repeal. Obama asked her to hold off for this 'compromise.'

[4lbs]

87. That's probably because he knew that while it would likely easily pass in the House, once again, the

Senate would have dragged it's feet, and the Repukes in the Senate would have filibustered the bill even coming to a vote.

Then, they likely wouldn't have 60 votes for cloture, to bring it to an up-or-down vote.

[thelordofhell]

78. Listen closely, 5 year old, the answer to your two questions are

None and None

You're too young to understand specifics

[NMMNG]

88. Pull up a seat sweetie

Obama campaigned on promises that he'd end DOMA and DADT, and he won despite making those two allegedly controversial promises. So it would be political suicide for him to follow through on that. When you become an adult you'll understand these things.

[XemaSab]

99. Gotcha

:P