Sunday, October 25, 2009

I totally support

I totally support you.  Except, of course, when I don't.

What we have here is a sign that the administration may not be living up to it's campaign promises.  The question that must be asked is "Why not?"

Throwing up a barrier to an organization trying to strike down a law that was supposedly promised to be changed anyway--what could the administration's reasoning be for something like this?

I am no proponent for LGBT rights.  I am a proponent for all Americans being treated equally under the law.  It's why I think "hate crime laws" are ridiculous.  If someone commits a crime, they've committed a crime.   Their motivation for committing that crime is moot.  If someone physically attacks me for being a soldier, is that a hate crime?  If someone attacks me for being a loud-mouthed cantankerous bastard, is that a hate crime?  Under the law, not so much.  Those are just crimes.  Even though as a member of the Armed Forces, I represent just 1 in 308 Americans--apparently not enough to qualify for "minority status."  If, however, you are LGBT, then your 1 in 10 status DOES qualify you for "hate crime" protections since, you know, you're a minority.

Crap.  I've digressed.  The issue here is that the administration rose to power making promises (as all administrations do.)  Then the administration chose to not only ignore those promises (again, as all administrations do) but has chosen to actively oppose those who are taking action to ensure those promises are met.  Here, citizens are petitioning their government for redress of grievances, and the Administration is using the US Department of Justice to work aginst the citizens who are trying to enact the very promises made.

My only question is:  Why?  Wouldn't it be easier to simply do nothing?  If the log cabin republicans win, the Administration can avoid the LGBT/DADT minefield altogether.  Just raise its hands, shrug its shoulders and say "the courts have spoken" and bask in the glow (and reap the PR rewards) of stating how another campaign promise was kept.   If the log cabin republicans lose, it can just raise its hands, shrug its shoulders and say "the courts have spoken", and then call for court reform, law review, whatever, and show that they continue to "fight for the rights of ALL Americans."  Either way, the Administration spends no political capital.

However, the administration chose to actively oppose the log cabin republicans' petition.  If the LCR wins, the Administration loses, and loses the capital of the LGBT support it embraced on the campaign trail.  If the LCR loses, the administration is seen as reneging on its previous promises, and actively opposing LGBT "rights."

Just who is making these decisions?  It seems that a win-win was discounted for a lose-lose choice.

I don't get it.


No comments: