here ya go smiley-does this count?

[BlaqueKatt]

you keep saying republicans hate homosexuals but it seems it was a REPUBLICAN group that is the first and only group to bring a legal challenge to DADT-how on earth does that fit your sterotype? They're fighting for your right to serve openly in the military if you so choose-no other gay rights group has even attempted a legal challenge-so yup still want to say no Republican anywhere ever has done anything to advance gay rights? and it falls within the last 10 years.

log cabin republicans vs united states of america

The case represents the only formal constitutional challenge to Don't Ask, Don't Tell-

LCR initially filed the suit, a facial challenge to the statute, in 2004. A bench trial got underway on July 13, 2010, before Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Justice Department had unsuccessfully sought to have the suit dismissed, arguing that as long as Congress had a rational basis for passing DADT in 1993 then it is constitutional. The Justice Department also asserted at trial that LCR does not have standing to challenge the law. LCR argues that DADT violates constitutional guarantees of due process and free speech.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, and Fred Phelps is a Democrat. >.>

[Hobbs]

Kind of dated, as the policy is being repealed now. Oh, and on the Senate panel that voted on repealing it? Only one Republican voted for it.

[HYHYBT]

I seem to recall that quite a lot of the judges who have struck down anti-marriage statutes in various states have been Republican (or at least Republican-appointed) as well.

But then, all the Republicans I can find around here are either strictly on the other side on this issue or don't care... and their candidates keep winning elections. My congressional representative is running UNOPPOSED, best I can tell, and he put forth the Federal Antimarriage Amendment the last time it was up for consideration. And by all accounts, Utah is worse.

Still, to know that there *are* supportive, and even gay, Republicans (or any other group) out there (even if they're rare and you haven't met any yourself) and yet still to go on painting all Republicans (or whatever) with the same brush is unfair. Understandable, but unfair.

[smileyeagle1021]

BlaqueKatt, yes, there are Republicans who are accepting. I do not think I have ever said (at least not recently) that every republican hated gay people, just that the organization as a whole was homophobic. The LCR in the past has not been allowed to participate in the national convention because they were accepting of homosexuality, and even in 2008 there was protest about them being permitted to participate.
As far as being the only group to make a legal challenge, this is true. However, as Hobbs pointed out, there was only one republican involved in the legislative decision.
That and most gay rights groups are shunning away from using the courts... after all, we all saw just how effective that was in California.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they are doing that, and I have to give massive props to any Republican group that is willing to break with the national platform. I will take help from anywhere I can get. But, I'm not holding my breath on seeing the national GOP becoming open and accepting any time soon.

[HYHYBT]

That and most gay rights groups are shunning away from using the courts... after all, we all saw just how effective that was in California.

It was very effective in California; it's just that something else happened later. And you can't really say the courts have failed on that, yet, as the real trial over it (the one claiming the constitution was unconstitutional under itself never had a chance, really) hasn't even had an initial decision yet.

[Mr. Anubite]

BlaqueKatt, yes, there are Republicans who are accepting. I do not think I have ever said (at least not recently) that every republican hated gay people, just that the organization as a whole was homophobic.

This.

This applies to the Mormons, as well as many other groups. It's good that there are Republicans who support our rights, just as it's good that there are Christians that support our rights.

I have no idea where I was going with that.

[smileyeagle1021]

HYHBT, the key word in that entire post was "yet" (take your pick on which one, both could be applied).
Until a ruling comes down either way, I don't blame people for not wanting to waste time in the courts with no guarantee that it isn't going to just be turned over by the legislature/referendum anyway. Going through the legislature still runs the risk of being overturned by referendum (or a new legislature being voted in), but typically, legislative decisions don't get as much scrutiny as court decisions.

[HYHYBT]

I don't quite follow: in the current case, it *could not* be overridden by new legislation, either at the state or federal level. Unless, of course, you think a federal constitutional amendment would go through... and they couldn't get that passed even when they had a Republican-controlled Congress *and* White House. And that Massachusetts case went pretty well.