‘NY Times’ Takes On ‘Unfinished Business’ Of DOMA, DADT

The board goes on:

Time has run out on the use of 'don’t ask, don’t tell' for these kinds of discharges. One of the points of repeal is to begin to build a military culture in which no one feels the need to request a discharge because of intolerance. That may take time, but the best way to start is for [new Secretary of Defense Leon] Panetta and other military leaders to wipe official discrimination from the books in the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Gray Lady, another piece, called "Unfinished Business: The Defense of Marriage Act," blasts the 15-year old law that they describe as one of "the most overtly discriminatory laws in the nation’s history."

The paper's editorial board also lambast the current Congress for its inaction, writing, "Any Congress with a real respect for personal freedom would repeal it. That, of course, does not describe the current Congress, where many members talk a great deal about freedom but apply it mainly to businesses and gun owners."

Since lawmakers aren't taking the initiative, the paper says, "the best hope for ending this legalized bigotry is with the courts."

While the Times certainly qualifies as one of the more liberal papers in the nation, it's always nice to see editorial boards, speaking the truth against disgraceful discrimination.


  1. says

    “Any Congress with a real respect for personal freedom would repeal it. That, of course, does not describe the current Congress, where many members talk a great deal about freedom but apply it mainly to businesses and gun owners.”

    Can I get an “AMEN” ?

  2. Pete n SFO says

    “The Defense of Marriage Act, which ranks with the most overtly discriminatory laws in the nation’s history,”

    My personal fave line… finally mainstream media is calling them out on the bullshiz we’ve all acknowledged for years now!

    There’s another interview w/ NOM’s Brian (blowhard) Brown & what they will attempt in various states to reverse rights.

    Homophobia Inc is open for business ready to line their pockets w/ some other idiot’s money.

  3. Robert says

    Why is it the Civil Libertarians who allegedly support full equality for LGBT people but none of them, especially Ron Paul, calls out the parade of clowns runing on the GOP ticket who oppose it? I guess when push comes to shove, the Civil Libertarians are nothing more than republicans at heart.

  4. BABH says

    “The New York Times’ editorial page is full of pro-gay sentiment today.”

    Not to mention the cover story of today’s NYT magazine: a terrific piece on Dan Savage’s sexual ethics.

  5. ratbastard says

    Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but the NY Times is doing this mainly to appeal to their dwindling readership….primarily ‘progressives’. The vast majority of people have little interest in reading about Dan Savage’s sexual ethics, including many gays. And most people have, at best, only a passing interest in DOMA, DADT, or gay civil rights in general. MANY find the topic tedious, at best.

  6. Richard Farias says

    @Ratbastard: You really do love to piss in everyone’s cornflakes, don’t you?

  7. says

    “Not to rain on anyone’s parade . . . ”

    Oh, come now, your only goal on TR is to rain on parades via your anti-progressive (i.e. PC from another angle) tank-like persona. Speaking of tedious . . .

    DOMA/marriage equality is a major constitutional and legislative issue. And not just with “progressives,” or the right wingnuts wouldn’t be successfully lining their pockets with anti-gay $$$$. As for sexual ethics, anyone who thinks people don’t like to read about those has been living in a cave–it’s foreign policy Americans hate to read about. We’re way more popular than Afghanistan.

  8. rafi says

    Did anyone else find themselves habitually flicking their eyes down to the commenter name once they got to the word “progressives” in quote marks, specifically to see if it was written by Ratbastard?

  9. Pete n SFO says

    Actually, I look at the name at the bottom first & skip anything written by ‘him’.

    It’s like a child throwing a tantrum- just ignore it.


  10. ratbastard says

    Awww…ruffle your pink boas? I spoke the truth. The NYT is preaching to the choir.

    And I put ‘progressive’ in quotations because it amuses me ‘progressives’ don’t want to refer to themselves as LIBERAL. And this is partially because ‘radical’ far left liberals have, over the past half century, given the word liberal a bad name with their silly PC bs, to the point they had to re=brand themselves with ‘progressive’.

  11. uffda says

    Anyone with a transparent moniker like Ratbastard shows himself to be too neurotically angry to trust or spend much time with -there are what seem an inordinate number of such commentators on this site, choristers of dysfunction. Some “community”…and yet, from the distance we enjoy, it’s a good deal of fun and a great source of memorable wisecracks, phrases, even insights. But Ratbastard?…he just strangles on his bile. One can hope he’s not a father.

  12. says

    Putting “progressive” in quotations and whining endlessly about silly liberal PC bs is merely silly rightwing PC bs channeled thru the FOX ditto heads instead of the MSNBC ditto heads. Different stripes on the same pony, darling. And you’re a one-trick pony. Time for a new persona, Ratty, this one is getting as tired as your other ones.

    The NYTimes extensively covering and editorializing on gay civil rights issues is important. The power of the newspapers is diminishing, but as newspapers go, the NYTimes is still the big cat, one with a big choir and a big cultural/political reach.

  13. ratbastard says


    I AM NOT a fan of Fox News or Mr. Murdoch in general, so spar me the usual frothing at the mouth and obsession with ‘Faux’ so many ‘progressives’ engage in. You and I know the real reason many ‘progressives’ are obsessed with Fox is because they kick the a** of Fox’s ‘progressive’ media competition.

    I of course am not disturbed per-se by the NYT prominently covering gay issues, but understand it for what it really is. And frankly find it too yuppie/guppie centric and out of touch with most people.

  14. says

    Like I said, frothing at the mouth over “progressives” and the NYTimes is no different than frothing at the mouth over Fox News. Anonymous commentators in their glass houses . . . You may not be a fan of Mr. Murdoch but you sound just like his talking heads.

    Do you really think many of us spend our time worrying what FOX News ratings are? Speaking of out of touch . . .