quote:(CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, effectively ending the ban on openly gay troops. U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' permanent injunction orders the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced" under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The judge, a Clinton appointee based in the Central District of California, previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members' Fifth Amendment rights to due process and freedom of speech, but had delayed issuing the injunction.
via jew and woman run CNN
hey, awesome! the log cabin republicans pulled a good stunt, there.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
wow
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yeah... I don't know if it's quite over yet.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Probably not, but at least it is a step towards getting a definitive answer to the issue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, perhaps some good-hearted lawyer might chime in and explain- what body now attempts to appeal this decision? Could not the President as the head of the military order that no appeal be made to this decision? Or am I missing something?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the president could easily courageously twiddle his thumbs and cause DADT's disembowelment to occur solely through the mechanisms by which the executive has abrogated legislative controls since 2000.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So the negative would be allowing himself to appear to be circumventing the legislative process by submitting to the court's decision... Yeah, I could live with that. I know it sounds hypocritical, but in this case the Senate is being bullied by a bunch of people who are against granting gays their civil rights. I'm in favor of brushing that aside in the name of the ultimate authority of the constitution.
And just on a more personal note, since I have several gays in my family as well as a number of social friends who are serving as Marine guard forces in Europe, I'm just hoping all the gay chatter can start to die down a little. My sister can just get married, my uncle can just not have to get hassled at the school board by Mormon parents at his high school, and my buddies can stop making fag jokes about each other to cover up their juvenile insecurities- maybe the first time they actually get an openly gay soldier in their unit, and have to learn to get along. If there's anything I've learned about Marines in the last few years it's that they know how to do their jobs as their told- I don't expect this to be a big challenge for them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:perhaps some good-hearted lawyer might chime in...
First, one has to exist. *ducks*
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
They say the president would prefer that it happened in Congress with a legal change rather than a judicial order. Personally, I agree with that. I think it would reflect better on us as a nation if we could actually pass a fair law instead of having to be spanked by the judge after the fact to get us to behave. Still, I'll take it as I can get it!
It's kinda funny that this happened the day after National Coming Out Day!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I agree, DDDaysh. Unfortunately, Congress didn't get to it fast enough. There's no one to blame for that except them. They had plenty of time to do it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So the negative would be allowing himself to appear to be circumventing the legislative process by submitting to the court's decision...
This is largely how things are going to keep working the longer our legislature is obstructed into uselessness. Executive acts more or less on judicial cues or reprimand. The Senate inches closer to becoming a glorified budget rubber-stamper.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)
Harry Truman had the military conduct a study on whether they were ready to be racially integrated. Over three quarters of the white military was against serving alongside blacks. Truman looked the survey over, considered it, then issued Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the armed forces, and told his service chiefs to comply with his lawful order. Obama can wake up now, recognize that republicans will hyperventilate about him being a tyrranical rule-breaker and probably muslim kenyan even if he wants to do this the 'orderly way' and that this is doing nothing but making his supporters bitter and apathetic about the liberal cause as we run up to the 2010 elections =)
[ October 14, 2010, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Any last vestiges of hope I had for Obama died when he picked Kagan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)
It's in poor taste to mock the forum's recurrent sa'eed-inflicted theme of OMG TEH JEWS RUN TEH MEDIA? or what?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)
It's in poor taste to mock the forum's recurrent sa'eed-inflicted theme of OMG TEH JEWS RUN TEH MEDIA? or what?
No, it's in poor taste to constantly bring it up every chance you get.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Wow. So, reading this newest bit, is it Obama doing this? It's being done by the executive branch, so I imagine so... is this right?
Sigh. If that's right, I have to say I think less of Obama now. I mean, he's done some good things, but he's starting to feel like what people used to say about Jimmie Carter.
I'm not even saying the impression is accurate. He may very well be doing lots of great stuff. I just don't hear about it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Any last vestiges of hope I had for Obama died when he picked Kagan.
I'd be interested to hear why, if you're willing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Obama appeals DADT, demands policy be reinstated (appeals anti-DOMA ruling too!)
hahahahahaha what a spineless coward
Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)
Harry Truman had the military conduct a study on whether they were ready to be racially integrated. Over three quarters of the white military was against serving alongside blacks. Truman looked the survey over, considered it, then issued Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the armed forces, and told his service chiefs to comply with his lawful order. Obama can wake up now, recognize that republicans will hyperventilate about him being a tyrranical rule-breaker and probably muslim kenyan even if he wants to do this the 'orderly way' and that this is doing nothing but making his supporters bitter and apathetic about the liberal cause as we run up to the 2010 elections =)
Most studies I've seen show that a pretty significant majority of Americans are opposed to DADT (probably because it's terrible.) I doubt republicans will hyperventilate all that much. Well, I hope not. But then again, as we've established, most of the conservative pundits I follow are online/blog/new media type people, and they pretty much all revile DADT as much as any liberal does.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dan, they would have if there had been nothing done to appeal it. Not just because of DADT, but because of the supposed usurpation of Congresses power regarding it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I doubt republicans will hyperventilate all that much.
For a given definition of 'hyperventilate', care to take a wager? The pundits you follow may or may not be opposed to DADT, Dan, but ordinary Republicans - at least the base - are still the folks who are energized in very serious numbers by gay-scare issues like marriage. Hell, it's happening right now in New York, or being attempted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd be interested to hear why, if you're willing.
The selection of Kagan meant "Despite my claims during the campaign, I agree with the Bush Administration's expansion of executive power. Furthermore, I think we should be successfully prosecuting more people and defending the use of eminent domain to benefit corporations."
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I'm not saying DADT isn't bad policy (it is), but a friend of mine who is working toward officer training once talked about this issue and gave me something to think about. The issue isn't so much with DADT itself but about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which (according to him) still has anti-sodomy rules on the books. So even if homosexuals can openly serve in the military, there are still discriminatory policies that can easily keep them from succeeding in military careers.
I can't track down any info on that particular element of the UCMJ in my first run of internet searches, but I might not be looking hard enough, so take it with as much salt as you please. Changes to the UCMJ need to be approved by Congress, which as we've seen is basically akin to running the request through a paper shredder. I'm hoping it won't happen, but if the rule is on the books I can see this same battle being fought all over again even if DADT is repealed, which basically makes me lose all faith in the legislative process.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The issue isn't so much with DADT itself but about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which (according to him) still has anti-sodomy rules on the books.
another easy solution: an order to nix any exemptions the military was enjoying from Lawrence v. Texas.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Obama appealed it because he said DADT should be repealed by an act of Congress, not by the courts. I am inclined to agree with him. Legislation should be enacted by the Legislative Branch.
Ending DADT immediately without taking into account the effects it will have on the military could have unforseen and unintended consequences. Obama did say that he wanted to repeal DADT, but he wanted to do it in a manner that would cause the least amount of problems.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree. If DADT is stopped, it pretty much opens the door. The rest will follow in time.
I just worry about the effect it will have on retention issues, which directly impact the readiness level of the services.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am tired of the President playing "fair".
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It has nothing to do with playing fair. Part of his job is to defend federal law. Right now, DADT is federal law, so he is required to defend it. What he SHOULD do is say "I am required to defend DADT as part of my duties as POTUS, but I do not agree with DADT and will be working to get it repealed in Congress."
That would send a clear message that he is only doing this out of respect for the office he is in and that he will be working hard to repeal it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Required by whom? Congress is broken. We have a judicial branch for a reason.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Obama appealed it because he said DADT should be repealed by an act of Congress
knock knock
who's there
procedural filibuster everything
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Legislation should be enacted by the Legislative Branch.
The judicial injunction ordering the immediate end of DADT is not legislating. It is, rather, an order to stop enforcing a previously legislated statute judged to be unconstitutional. The judge did not create new law.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I doubt republicans will hyperventilate all that much.
For a given definition of 'hyperventilate', care to take a wager?
Not particularly. See the line following the one you quoted. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Out of curiosity, what happens if the military refuses to comply with the judges orders? Who could enforce it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I imagine that since failing to comply would be a breach of the rights of service members, they could be sued for lots and lots and lots of money, and they would lose.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Required by whom? Congress is broken. We have a judicial branch for a reason.
We also have executive and lgislative branches for a reason. Whether Congress is broken or not is irrelevent. Congress legislates, not the courts. If one court finds it unconstitutional that is fine. A higher court may not. Obama is simply doing what the office of the President is required to do, which is defend the law. If the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional, then that is great. I would however much rather see a repeal through Congress.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, required by whom?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's the executive's job.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Challenging judicial decision? All of them? Or all the federal ones, anyway?
Where is that defined as the executive's job?
[ October 18, 2010, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was under the impression from this thread that under your system (as in ours) , that while Obama's DOJ is required to defend the law initially (i.e. show up in court), if they lose (as now), they are not necessarily required to appeal.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm no legal expert, but one thing puzzles me now. So DADT is currently not being observed, which presumably means that if someone is gay he or she can now bring it up in conversation without fear of reprisal.
What happens if Obama's appeal wins, and DADT is re-instated? Are these people going to be discharged for mentioning that they were gay when it was legal? Or are they going to be allowed to go back in the closet and continue to serve? If so, will all their friends and superior officers have to pretend like they don't know? One way or another, seems like it's going to create some awkward situations if the ruling is reversed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
SITUATION AT PRESENT
Obama administration's DADT challenge was weak and cursory; it appears to have been denied short of intervention by a higher court.
So, everyone, prepare to have the military FALL TO SHAMBLES as the proud straight members of the military fall to chaos because they are now being scoped by the lecherous eyes of openly gay servicemen and women. You know, or not.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Holy strawman....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh, don't i wish
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
MEANWHILE ON FACEBOOK, PROGRESS AND TOLERANCE MARCHES ON
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Challenging judicial decision? All of them? Or all the federal ones, anyway?
Where is that defined as the executive's job?
It isn't, of course. If the government loses a case before the court which it feels was tried fairly and has no grounds for appeal, it would be unethical to appeal that decision.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
All Obama had to do was NOT appeal... he wasn't required to...
Why risk going through congress when you don't have to? Why not just let an unconstitutional law die?
Whose side is he on when a REPUBLICAN group challenges an anti-gay law and WINS only to face further challenges from Obama's DOJ?
Then again, Clinton signed the damn thing, AND the DOMA in the first place...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Horray! DADT is back thanks to the administration valiantly fighting to preserve it! Great job, everyone. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Whose side is he on when a REPUBLICAN group challenges an anti-gay law and WINS only to face further challenges from Obama's DOJ?
Maybe he tries to look out for the interests of both sides?
"There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America." ~Obama
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Maybe he's a backstabbing piece of Mierda who only wants gay votes, not gay rights.
Seems more likely given the otherwise extremely partisan politics of his administration.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Given he's a Democrat when the Democrats control both houses of Congress, his administration has not seemed particularly partisan. The administration (not counting members of Congress) has been pretty consistent in playing by the rules in at least an attempt at fairness to both sides.
Obama has supported the passage of a bill to eliminate DADT through Congress. It has passed the House and may pass the Senate this year. But if the courts overrule it instead, conservatives can simply claim its another example of "activist judges" and argue that now they are telling us how to run the military. It would also create a precedent that the President can simply not bother to defend laws he doesn't like. Neither of these would be good things in the long run. In fact, they could potentially damage the gay rights movement in the long run - right now advances in gay rights are relying a lot on the percieved legitimacy of the court system, and could be undone if enough people came to the conclusion that judges have gone too far in telling us what to do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... It would also create a precedent that the President can simply not bother to defend laws he doesn't like.
Is that really a precedent though, given this?
quote:Based on this advice from the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after consulting with the Department of Justice about the legal effect of that advice, the President concluded that the Dornan Amendment is unconstitutional. It arbitrarily discriminates and violates all notions of equal protection. Again, at the direction of the President, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice will decline to defend this provision in court. If the Congress chooses to defend this treatment of men and women in the military, it may do so. But this administration will not.
As a note of interest, a refusal to appeal was also an important step toward same-sex marriage up here
quote:On June 17, 2003, the Government of Canada announced that it would not appeal the decisions of the courts of appeal in British Columbia and Ontario on the definition of marriage, but would instead draft a bill extending access to civil marriage to same-sex couples while also affirming the freedom of religious belief, and refer that bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure its constitutionality. On July 17, 2003, the Government referred the draft bill to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That's not a citation? Neither would finding results in a google search for "gays angry at obama" prove any supposition rendered above?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Personally, I think if Obama hadn't challenged it, we'd have bigger problems in the long run. The more times this is declared unconstitutional, the better!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's not a citation? Neither would finding results in a google search for "gays angry at obama" prove any supposition rendered above?
Why are you abusing question marks today?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Don't "ask" don't "tell" might've been struck down but behavior is another issue. Heterosexual acts within military units aren't tolerated, homosexual acts are no different. Sodomy is still against the UCMJ and the military has a strict fraternization policy.
Striking down DADT might be bad for homosexuals. DADT prevented the majority from asking the affeminate sounding man, "are you gay?". Some people prefer to keep their sexual life private. Now they can come out of the closet,...what about the one's that want to stay in the closet? Sexuality is a private matter, even for decent heterosexuals. It's a double edged sword...they can be asked. The courts didn't strike down the sodomy regulations and suspect gays can be "asked" about their sexuality. Lying to a superior officer or on your enlistment documents is grounds for discharge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Personally, I think if Obama hadn't challenged it, we'd have bigger problems in the long run. The more times this is declared unconstitutional, the better!
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Don't "ask" don't "tell" might've been struck down but behavior is another issue. Heterosexual acts within military units aren't tolerated, homosexual acts are no different.
Right. What got struck down is the worthless bull where you could be openly straight but not openly gay, and where even having a picture of your The Gay Married Spouse on your desk is reason enough for witchhunt and dismissal. A certainly not 'no different' situation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Don't "ask" don't "tell" might've been struck down but behavior is another issue. Heterosexual acts within military units aren't tolerated, homosexual acts are no different.
Right. What got struck down is the worthless bull where you could be openly straight but not openly gay, and where even having a picture of your The Gay Married Spouse on your desk is reason enough for witchhunt and dismissal. A certainly not 'no different' situation.
What got struck down was the protection of homosexuals that are and always have been in the military. They've always served, in the closet. Clinton's DADT policy protected the gays that have always served. That policy put an end to questions like,...."are you gay?".
Gay married spouse? What country are you talking about? The federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage. If California legalizes marijuana, can soldiers start hitting the bong?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"Openly Straight".... funny equivalency attempt. I'm "openly male" with my penis. Of course there are some that have a penis and consider themselves women and want an operation to remove their penis. Even with their penis, they should be accepted for being "openly female". Openly obvious. Openly natural. Every ship and every command I served in, there were obvious homosexuals serving...DADT protected them. Now, they'll be asked. Asking is the new form of ridicule.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What got struck down was the protection of homosexuals that are and always have been in the military. They've always served, in the closet. Clinton's DADT policy protected the gays that have always served. That policy put an end to questions like,...."are you gay?".
Acting like a policy that forces homosexuals to conceal themselves in order to guarantee their right to participate in the armed forces is something that is 'for them' and 'protects them' is just fully unconscious and unconscionably horrid.
If there was a policy that forced religious people to never mention being religious or they got kicked out, you wouldn't call it 'for their protection,' you'd call it an outrage.
quote:"Openly Straight".... funny equivalency attempt. I'm "openly male" with my penis.
Yes, genius. Someone's gender is typically easily visually ascertainable. You don't even know what 'equivalency' means.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
True, they don't have to conceal themselves,...now they can be asked and have to tell. I prefer a situation where sexuality is a private matter. Heterosexual acts will get you kicked out of the military. What is "openly gay"? As a military leader, my sexual preference isn't a subject open for discussion. What's truly pathetic is being defined by what you enjoy in the bedroom. I pity people that define their lives by what gets them off. I don't define my life by my sexuality and my sexuality has nothing to do with my job. Sexuality is and should remain a private matter. No one should be able to ask and no one should be able to tell. As a hetero sexual, can I now tell everyone what gets me off in the bedroom?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
That's all well and good, Mal. I don't know if you've offered your position on the main question or not - should people be discharged when their homosexuality becomes known?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If sexuality should remain a private matter, Malanthrop, I am going to have to ask you to go back through your posting history and scrub all references to being married to a woman. Unless you want to come off as a raging hypocrite.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
The idea that anyone believes that what got struck down here was only a protection for gays, and that they should have wanted to keep it, is also a malanthropism of such massive ignorance that my head is spinning.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If sexuality should remain a private matter, Malanthrop, I am going to have to ask you to go back through your posting history and scrub all references to being married to a woman. Unless you want to come off as a raging hypocrite.
Yes, the term "wife" might be perceived as feminine...sorry for my insensitivity. I should use the term, "spouse". I'm behind the PC terminology curve. We don't have "actress" anymore, they're all "actors". Funny they demanded the masculine terms. Wait...my husband Anna is more fitting. We're all busbands now. Don't want to demean Anna by calling her a wife.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We don't have "actress" anymore, they're all "actors".
Again, you're clueless. We still have 'actress.'
There is a little thing called the oscars you may peripherally consult from year to year to see if this changes in the future.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The idea that anyone believes that what got struck down here was only a protection for gays, and that they should have wanted to keep it, is also a malanthropism of such massive ignorance that my head is spinning.
In the military there is only one sex...soldier. Yes, gays are open to "tell"... For the activist, this is a victory but the "ask" part is a nightmare for the one's that prefer privacy.
Many gays don't want to come out of the closet. As a heterosexual I view it as a private matter, not a subject of shame of fear. Even when free to, most gays will keep it to themselves. Now, they're subject to questioning. Sexuality has nothing to do with one's job. Gays can and have been exceptional soldiers. Sexual preference is irrelevant. The irrelevancy is now a different category. Maybe a certain percentage of advancements need to be reserved for gays. Yesterday the gays on board were shipmates...tomorrow, they'll be a "protected class".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh no, another imagined quota-based unfair minority advantage for you to whine about.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Again, sorry if I've missed your answer elsewhere, but should gays be discharged if and when their homosexuality becomes known?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Yep, because I know I'm forever going around asking my coworkers if they're gay!
Seriously, just because someone asks, doesn't mean someone has to tell! Whatever happened to the old "Mind your own beezwax"?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: That's all well and good, Mal. I don't know if you've offered your position on the main question or not - should people be discharged when their homosexuality becomes known?
Yes, until the laws have changed. They aren't grandfathered...they joined under fraudulent circumstances. Should illegal aliens be deported for announcing their legal status? Being able to "ask" and "tell" doesn't strike down the policy. Maybe they should change the "sodomy" policy within the UCMJ before demanding sodomites identify themselves, openly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: That's all well and good, Mal. I don't know if you've offered your position on the main question or not - should people be discharged when their homosexuality becomes known?
Yes, until the laws have changed. They aren't grandfathered...they joined under fraudulent circumstances.
Being gay is not a fraudulent circumstance, so that's pretty patently full of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: At least he gave you a straight answer neh?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
If they weren't asking, then how did a gay man join under "fraudulent circumstances"? If they weren't asked, they didn't lie.
Also, being gay doesn't automatically translate into sodomy. I'm not saying there isn't a high correlation, but they aren't equivalent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That policy put an end to questions like,...."are you gay?".
That's a lie, malanthrop. It didn't put an answer to such questions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: At least he gave you a straight answer neh?
For an extremely weird definition of straight answer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: At least he gave you a straight answer neh?
For an extremely weird definition of straight answer.
I meant straight as in unambiguous.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Yes, until the laws have changed. They aren't grandfathered...they joined under fraudulent circumstances. Should illegal aliens be deported for announcing their legal status? Being able to "ask" and "tell" doesn't strike down the policy. Maybe they should change the "sodomy" policy within the UCMJ before demanding sodomites identify themselves, openly.
So, once the laws are changed, you're fine with gays openly serving?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal--just so you understand, because your posts seem a bit misguided.
They are not replacing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with "Must Ask -- Must Tell." They are replacing it with "That's not important--we have #@$@#$@# Taliban to kill."
Right now Private Gay can not be asked about his sexual preference. This is true. To find out if he is a homosexual, Private Jones would follow him until he did something that proved he was homosexual--goes to a Gay bar, kisses another of the same sex, writes an email saying that he loves him or she lovers her.
If removed, then yes, Private Jones can ask Private Gay--"Are you a homo?" It would be rude and dumb, but it can be asked. Then Private Gay could say, "what's it to you? Asking for a date?" but basically ignore the other Private.
You point out that Sodomy is still a crime in the military that will get you kicked out. The proof for Sodomy is slightly more difficult to obtain--either Private Gay would have to be careless with some personal video taping, doing things he shouldn't be doing in public places (straight or gay) or Private Jones would have to become really close friends in order to undercover that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Let me google that for you...
Hahaha, one of the worst responses I've ever seen on Hatrack. Kudos.
And you thought this response would be a nice way to class up the place?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Sorry, you're right, that was a very slightly mean thing of me to say.
I am sorry The Pixiest, you're really good at Googling.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Several of the links on the very first page of her Googling showed examples (in their own words, even!) of why some gay people felt betrayed by Obama, and were no longer supporting him.
So, yes. Yes she is.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.
Good. Now let's hope they don't implement it in such a piss-poor manner that it gets a lot of openly gay service people beat up. Groups of young rednecks + different = danger.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They won't implement it. The outgoing Dems and Obama aren't pushing for it and the incoming Tea Party Republicans wouldn't even consider it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: If they weren't asking, then how did a gay man join under "fraudulent circumstances"? If they weren't asked, they didn't lie.
Also, being gay doesn't automatically translate into sodomy. I'm not saying there isn't a high correlation, but they aren't equivalent.
They asked Russell and John. I just figured that was SOP.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I'm more worried that DeMint will push for an extension of DADT to go into effect for education. He has already said that personally he doesn't think any active homosexual should be allowed to teach children.
He didn't mention pedophilia, but that he didn't want to confuse children with their religious teachings from home. It might create awkward questions.
Others are pushing for DADT to move into the entertainment field. That's how I decipher the whole "Gay agenda" argument.
The "Gay agenda" argument says that homosexuals are banding together to force the notion that their lifestyle is normal. Every movie, TV show, or advertisement that shows a happy homosexual couple is branded "Another push for the Gay agenda." The only way to do that--don't hinder homosexual roles or actors--just limit them from being obvious about their homosexuality.
That is the least destructive way I think anyone could stop the "Gay agenda."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Several of the links on the very first page of her Googling showed examples (in their own words, even!) of why some gay people felt betrayed by Obama, and were no longer supporting him.
So, yes. Yes she is.
Strictly speaking, Pixiest's comment was on Obama's mental state. The links she provided are evidence regarding the mental states of some homosexuals.
Not that I'm unsympathetic to their anger.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It's been a very long time since I've posted here (though I still read the forums daily when I can, believe it or not), but after reading the confusion regarding malanthrop's post I decided it was necessary to explain what he's talking about.
Most people outside the military don't know what Don't Ask, Don't Tell actually is, or how it works. They usually assume it's a congressional law that bans homosexuality in the military. That's incorrect.
The law in question, 10 U.S.C. § 654, regulates homosexual conduct in the military. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a defense directive issued by Clinton after the bill instituting the ban on homosexual conduct was passed, and was established as a means of weakening the ban on homosexual conduct, and works for the benefit of gay service members. The media, in it's stupidity, confused the two. So calling for a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, without altering 10 U.S.C. § 654 would be step backwards, so to speak.
Second, most people outside the military don't really understand how DADT is implemented. I've served alongside several gay Sailors and Marines, as well as an astonishing number of gay Airmen, and it's not about the "private Jones, private Gay" example given. Inside of a unit, everyone knows everyone's business, and there are no "closeted gays." Whether you mention your sexuality or not, everyone knows. I've heard the question "are you gay?" asked countless times. The people DADT refers to is commanding SNCOs and officers inquiring about your sexuality. A hearing on homosexual conduct can only be initiated by a field grade officer or higher, and it has to be initiated by an official complaint. I've only seen this happen once, and it was by an incredibly spiteful and petty woman against her roommate. Luckily, there was no evidence, and once she was required to testify, she backed out, so nothing came of it.
I am, of course, in favor or allowing gays to serve openly in the military. I just wanted to clarify something that is usually badly misrepresented by the media.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The bill that passed today DOES repeal 10USC654. There's some gibberish in there about how certain milestones have to be reached in order for it to go into effect, but near as I can tell that's an executive branch issue, it's out of Congress' hands now.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The bill that passed today DOES repeal 10USC654. There's some gibberish in there about how certain milestones have to be reached in order for it to go into effect, but near as I can tell that's an executive branch issue, it's out of Congress' hands now.
Oh yes, I know. I was just explaining some of the confused terminology.
As far as enforcement, I would suspect it'd be immediate. When the judge issued her injunction 2 months ago, the DOD immediately suspended all investigations as well as any discharges being processed.
What will be interesting is to see what measures will be taken to reinstate service members who have been discharged under 654 and want to return, as well as some issues with benefits. (For example, typically only service members leaving with an honorable discharge are eligible for the Montgomery/Post 9/11 GI bill. Will gays given an other than honorable conditions discharge be given those benefits?)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dog, thatnk you for clarifying that. I think a lot of us here in this thread were aware of it, but you are right.....the media has been less than clear on the subject.
That being said, everyone in the conversation knows what the media meant when they commented on the DADT policy. They weren't asking for things to be MORE constricting for gays in the armed forces.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, I am not sure there will be any retroactive reinstatement, as the law of the land at the time was being enforced.
At the very least they should all be given honorable discharges, providing that was the only reason they were discharged.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That being said, everyone in the conversation knows what the media meant when they commented on the DADT policy. They weren't asking for things to be MORE constricting for gays in the armed forces.
Reading Mal's comments, it looks like he legitimately believed it was ending just DADT, not the restrictions on homosexual conduct. If not, his comments make very little sense.
Oh.
Never mind then...
quote:Also, I am not sure there will be any retroactive reinstatement, as the law of the land at the time was being enforced.
Well, this is actually what I'm getting at.
My platoon sergeant served for 4 years during the Gulf War, and left the Marine Corps as a corporal. He went on to get married, start a career, and have 2 kids. A few weeks after the attacks on the WTC, he went to the recruiters office and asked to reenlist. They enlisted him as a sergeant and didn't make him go through boot camp again, just got him up to speed on the changes in the 8 years he'd been out, then got him to work. He's a gunnery sergeant now.
There were a lot of people kicked out under DADT who were pretty exemplary men and officer. If they reenlisted, would they be given their old rank/commission? Or would they have to work their way up from scratch again?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: If not, his comments make very little sense.
No matter what, mal's comments make very little sense.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*ducks*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)