Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
yeah, I know. I had friends that were gay then too.
but clinton stuck his neck out to do dadt, and while some idealist may have been bothered by it, it did give cover for a number of years compared to what proceeded it. I mean I don't normally suggest reading stories people post but anyone wondering where the country was then, read the story rt linked to before.
the real shame is that clinton invested in dadt and we are all arguing about it now, but a gay couple has no right to quiet enjoyment of their home. no president has ever invested in the expansion of the rights that extend to everyone based upon sex and religion and race and IQ (hi ggg!) but people can still give gay couples shit in their homes.
Why isn't that the battleground? I don't get it and I didn't get it in 93.
|
You're parsing forms of the same discrimination. Sure, interfering with the personal lives of gays is particularly egregious. But denying them the right to serve openly is one of the soft forms of bigotry that allows policies you're alluding to to persist. You can't unwind the broad discrimination against them selectively, in fits and stops. Let them serve openly and you'll show a level of acceptance that will crush all other forms of intolerance. In that regard, it's a time saver.
Threaded Mode