Congress actually gave the President a great deal of power in 1993 with the bill everybody is calling DADT. The law itself does not in any way spell out the "we don’t ask, you don’t tell" principles which were later enacted as official DoD policy.

Okay, so the bill out of congress says essentially that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals shouldn’t be in the military because homosexuality is bad, evil, icky, and makes our armies lose wars. The bill then goes on to say the President, through his SecDef and DoD should come up with a policy and set of rules that discharges known LGBs, and describes some conditions under which this is supposed happen.

Then comes the interesting bit: "Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that— (1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and (2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces. (emphasis added)

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

So there you have it: Two ways they don’t have to kick out someone who says they’re gay or is known to be gay. One is when the claim –whether true or not — is for the purpose of getting out of the armed forces. The other is if the person’s discharge is not in the best interest of the armed forces.  . . .

Let’s pretend mortgages are meat.

No, no — bear with me, this will make sense in a moment.

In the olden days (circa 1990s), banks and other financial institutions would write mortgages, which were backed by the asset — known as the house and/or property. A single piece of meat — say a porterhouse steak. Sometimes that steak would be sold to another entity, and along with it all the paperwork showing where that steak came from, who was responsible for it, and so on. If there was a problem with the steak, you’d just go back to the farm where it came from, deal with it there. If the product was no good, the farm would go out of business (be foreclosed), but otherwise it was a nice situation, and although not hugely profitable, it still made money. Simple, huh?

Then the banks and financial behemoths got a bright idea: Let’s turn all this meat into tasty sausage. We’ll just chuck it into the grinder, mix it all up, and let people buy pieces (shares) of the sausage. On average, it’ll be even better than meat because we can average everything — and we can throw in the nasty bits (the lousy properties, the poor risks), spice it up (give it AAA+ ratings) and it’ll all be the same. As long as our supply of meat is plentiful and keeps getting better and better, we’ll get filthy stinking rich.

Suddenly there was huge demand for more and more meat — and the sausage makers were so eager to get more, they stopped asking where it came from or whether it was any good. People who were in no position financially or situationally to become farmers (homeowners) were cozened into doing so, so as to produce more and more meat for the sausage grinders. Existing farmers were encouraged to buy farms far, far bigger than they could reasonably operate and maintain. The price of farmland skyrocketed. Cost per acre began to far exceed the value of the meat which could be produced on it.   . . .

Consider a little deeper on the Obama Administration’s weird actions (and inactions) on GLBT civil rights issues. I’ll even set aside my own inferred conclusion that we’re dealing with overt homophobia here.

Obama (and his Administration) insists that discrimination against GLBTs is bad and wrong. He speaks of repealing DADT and DOMA as if that is the only way to get rid of these laws — which he claims to be against. Meanwhile, his DOJ fights with utmost vigor and (dare I say it?) fierceness asserting the Constitutionality of having such laws. To them a judicial overturning of either one is inconceivable — and to be resisted at all costs.

Thus even if, in the world of magical unicorn mayonnaise, both laws were repealed, it would remain completely legal for a future Congress and/or President to reinstate bans on gays and lesbians serving in the military, and legal also for the U.S. Federal government to ban and possibly even nullify existing same-sex marriages. Individual states would remain free to deem same-sex marriages null and void, or even reclassify an out-of-state same-sex marriage as a felony (shades of pre-Loving v. Virginia, huh?) if they chose to do so.

Remember, repeals of DADT and DOMA would result only in the absence of specific bans — not a guarantee in either case there would result an established civil right to protect. Obama’s Administration even demanded to be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the theoretical outcome of a DADT repeal. What do you bet that any DOMA repeal ‘compromise’ would include the right of individual states to continue to outlaw same-sex marriages?

Note again the implications of Obama’s position: It’s wrong to discriminate against GLBTs, but it is in no way unconstitutional or illegal to do so.

In other words, according to this President, GLBT civil rights are not inalienable, fundamental rights at all, but something the government, the citizenry, and society can choose to give to or to withhold as they like. Even if these "rights" to marry, to serve, or not to be fired or discriminated against are granted, the government is free to take them away again, whenever it wants to.

Many of us have inferred — possibly correctly — that this President and his top advisors are bigots and/or homophobes. But I think we have actual proof of a reality far more insidious.

Assuming we take them completely at their word, their utter insistence on legislative solutions to gay rights issues, when combined with their insistence on the constitutionality of anti-gay measures, means that we are not dealing with political leaders who believe that GLBT citizens even have fundamental rights which can be violated.

To them, we’re not a group of people who have been denied actual civil rights as citizens and human beings — but merely a special interest group asking for particular politically inconvenient favors. Not only do our supposed Democratic allies and President fail to take us seriously, it is not even a priority for them to ensure that our hard-won "rights" cannot be taken away arbitrarily and capriciously the next time the government changes hands.

In short, what are fundamental rights to us… to them are evidently not, but merely special privileges.

He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now.”

(quote in Ken’s coming-out interview in The Atlantic)

In this single sentence, Ken Mehlman demonstrates he has learned nothing about the moral evil in deliberately fomenting division and hatred.

As a Republican party leader, and indeed as George W Bush’s 2004 campaign manager, he actively helped enact the worst anti-gay platform planks, including advocating a U.S. Constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, urging states to enact bans, and explicitly stating that “homosexuality was incompatible with military service.” His party fought against hate crimes legislation, passage of ENDA, and against the repeals of DADT and DOMA. At no point in the last 6 or 7 years has the GOP budged or moderated one iota off that position. They love anti-gay initiatives as their go-to wedge issue, and they’re not afraid to gay-bait openly with vile claims such as “It’s to protect the children!”

He has never apologized for his active role in it; he asserts (without any proof whatsoever) he kept them from being worse. I guess he’s now claiming the alternative Republican platform was “Kill the gays and take their kids.”

Now he asks that gays join with Republicans because we all need to hate Muslims together?

We’re supposed to do this, when his former President and his party members did absolutely nothing to stop the post-invasion anti-gay violence in Iraq or Afghanistan? When at best they were silent or, more often, actively in agreement with radical Christians in the U.S. who called for gays to be put to death in African countries such as Uganda?

“Vote Republican or the Muslims will get you.” This is all he has to say? This is his great revelation?

Ken Mehlman doesn’t even begin to comprehend the pathetic irony of him, as a newly self-declared gay person, calling upon the GLBT community to unite in common cause with the Republicans. Unite with them not because his party will now fight for GLBT civil rights — no, that would actually make sense (and is as likely as aerial porcine weather phenomena).

No, we’re supposed to form common cause with the Republicans so we can hate Muslims together. This is so effing twisted, I keep looking to see if these quotes and statements are some kind of hoax.

This sick bastard has learned nothing about the poison of hatred, intolerance, bigotry and xenophobia. He’s only switched targets, and for the most selfish of reasons.

Recently, I’ve noticed a dramatic increase in the variety — and sheer lunacy factor — in the groups being blamed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, the Vatican, and its spokesmen (and they are always men, let us never forget that) for priests and bishops molesting, sexually abusing, and raping children. Ofttimes the abuse went on for decades while the Church concerned itself more about appearances and not losing a single cleric no matter how vile his behavior.

Some of those being blamed are frequently mentioned, such as "homosexuals" or "loose sexual morals of modern society."

Over the last few weeks, I began compiling a list of those blamed, especially as the Church spokesmen began really going wild with their allegations. Earlier this week, I posted a comment in Eli’s Seminal diary, "Another Day, Another Scapegoat" with the list. A few kind comments later and some encouragement, here’s my first FDL diary ever, including not only the list but links to the sources I was able to scare up with a few hours of Google searches. They may not always be the best web citation and a few are repeats, but I tried the best I could.

Without further adieu, here’s everyone blamed for the Church’s pedophile problem, in no particular order (although the most recent one blaming porn was just reported today):

• Porn on television and the internet
• Homosexuals
• Atheists
• Anti-Semites
• Jews (especially Zionist Jews who brought the Holocaust upon themselves)
• Freemasons (who were in league with the Jews)
• Progressive Western societies with non-repressive sexual attitudes
• Liberals and progressives in general
• Activists, radical feminists, and gays
• International anti-Catholic conspiracies (in addition to the Jews and Freemasons)
• Petty gossip
• The NY Times
• President Obama
• Satan himself
• The children, who supposedly seduced priests on purpose (The Lolita Defense)
• Absolutely no one associated with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Vatican, or the current or previous popes ever
• Homosexuals (x3), which by definition also includes lesbians, although how that is supposed to work I have no clue whatsoever

That’s everything. If you have others, please feel free to post ‘em in the comments.