posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
That's not a citation? Neither would finding results in a google search for "gays angry at obama" prove any supposition rendered above?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
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!
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, sorry if I've missed your answer elsewhere, but should gays be discharged if and when their homosexuality becomes known?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
