So, if gays can serve in the military

[bonemachine]

At what point can we make the argument that it's ridiculous to say that it's OK for them to die for their country, but not OK to get married?

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Step 2.

The groundwork is there now. :)

[terrya]

4. Yep. Exactly.

:-)

DOMA repeal is next. Or throwing it in the garbage through the courts. I don't give a damn how at this point.

[USA_1]

5. DOMA = A Needless Federal Government Intrusion

Property rights were always held to be the prerogative of the states, not the federal government. DOMA unnecessarily expands federal authority into property rights which is a violation of right wing ''principles''. The fact that so many right wingers ignore this truth shows how hypocritical they are.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. The groundwork has been laid in the Courts...

But expect no legislation out of Congess for 2 years. So the courts is the best course now, as it was in Loving V Virginia.

[alex cross]

3. As they say, read the bill

it's an eye opener, especially :

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

Sub.D(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in <b>violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code</b> (relating to the definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ and referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act).

section 7 of title 1, United States Code:

TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Also note that the "repeal" is still subject to the findings of a commission

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

And that ladies and germs is a loop hole you can fly a C-5 transport through.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-6520

[kenny blankenship]

7. Yes, they are looking to "limit the damage" through DADT repeal,

which they were forced to carry out by 2 external events. 1) Federal court system was rapidly bringing DADT's lifespan to a close anyway, and court action on DADT would impose equality on the politicians in all kinds of ways they don't want. Your post brings up a prime example. Oh the drama if we were to really win our Constitutional RIGHTS, as opposed to getting a limited grant of Congressional permission. 2) Democrats just lost control of the Congress after their first failed vote on DADT. They were now facing permanent loss of the glbtq constituency -all our money and votes- so their hands were forced in the lame duck session to revisit DADT and make good on a promise they'd put off for years. They scrambled and made whatever deals they had to to get a cloture vote.

[kenny blankenship]

6. While repeal helps, it's less help than a finding that antigay discrimination is unConstitutional

Repeal of DADT may help somewhat with the pursuit of marriage equality, politically, but gives no effective legal help.
A finding by the federal judiciary, on the other hand, that gays are actual people and must be allowed to serve in the military ends DADT immediately, and would in the same stroke spell the doom of DOMA and other discriminatory statutes of Congress and states. You can decide for yourself what role that may play in their zeal to end DADT through the legislature.