Prop 8 struck down, A federal judge in CA ruled against Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and now this ruling, in many ways the most powerful of them all.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Good Gay News Keeps Rolling In
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That's terrific. Next I want to hear the death penalty has been aboliished before anyone else is murdered by the government. I know, I can dream, can't I.
Nothing wrong with the dream. We need to stop killing, not so much to spare a vicious human being, but because WE should be better than that. Fortunately, most western democracies ARE better than that but the U.S. (like in many other similar areas) is behind the curve.
But that's a different subject. Right now, I'm just happy for gay and lesbian military personal, that things have been going in this direction. Sounds like this is a very powerful ruling. Watch for the big ripples.
Death Penalty
I see no reason to imprison someone for the rest of their life who has killed before and who would kill again if given the opportunity. So that WE can feel smugly superior by not killing is hardly a reason. WE should be better than THAT.
Remember that our prisons are supposed to be correctional facilities, so lifetime imprisonment serves that purpose how? What's the use of correcting someone if they're never to re-enter society? What incentive is there for the one imprisoned to become corrected? So now you have to accept that violent predators could eventually be released if successfully corrected or else admit prisons are not correctional facilities but rather facilities of punishment and in the case of our killer, a place where he/she will be sentenced to punishment for the rest of their life. Still feeling smugly superior?
My only objection to the death penalty is my skepticism towards the competency and honesty of everyone in law enforcement, witnesses and the judicial system. Still, there are cases where the clarity of guilt transcends all of that.
DADT
I'm not so sure I like this angle. It worked for this case, but then let's say she was part of a homophobic unit. If it could then be demonstrated that her reinstatement would hurt morale and so forth, then she'd lose, right? So the defense for this is to whip up anti-gay sentiment in the military in order to demonstrate that openly gay members would affect morale and thus, unit effectiveness. I would much prefer an argument where the reactions of others has no bearing. If it can be demonstrated that the soldier could effectively perform his or her tasks, then that's it. End of debate, regardless of age, gender, race or sexual orientation. The threat to morale then, and thus unit effectiveness, would be the homophobic reactions and not the gay or lesbian soldier, thus placing guilty where it belongs, with the bigots.
Post a Comment