Judge orders halt to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Beerina · 12th October 2010, 03:41 PM

Probably going nowhere but there it is.

Unabogie · 12th October 2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It always seemed to me that gay rights will most likely come from being ruled constitutionally protected.

ProBonoShill · 12th October 2010, 05:01 PM

Better late than never I guess.

I still don't think it's a good idea for couples regardless of sexual orientation to serve in the same combat unit during a time of war.

XBoxWarrior · 12th October 2010, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I still don't think it's a good idea for couples regardless of sexual orientation to serve in the same combat unit during a time of war.

You don't think a gay couple would protect each other?

I have news for you.

Pauliesonne · 12th October 2010, 05:39 PM

Everytime I see that the feelings of american LGBT people are trampled on, a small flicker of something that's actually good happens.

I just wished they would happen a damn sight more regular than they actually do.

Juniversal · 12th October 2010, 05:40 PM

That's great news. A win for common sense and rationality. I can already see the conservatives objecting because an "activist judge bypassed congress!". If it takes "activist judges" to make reasonable decisions that congress wont then so be it.

ProBonoShill · 12th October 2010, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

You don't think a gay couple would protect each other?

I have news for you.

No quite the opposite in fact, I think soldiers would go out of their way to protect their mate and it could compromise the unit.

Unabogie · 12th October 2010, 05:54 PM

I do want to note that there are conservatives in this thread and so far the support for ending DADT is unanimous. Good to see, and good for you, those on the right.

bynmdsue · 12th October 2010, 06:46 PM

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

ravdin · 12th October 2010, 06:52 PM

As predicted, the Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Pathetic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

Redtail · 12th October 2010, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Did you ever serve?

Ryokan · 12th October 2010, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I still don't think it's a good idea for couples regardless of sexual orientation to serve in the same combat unit during a time of war.

The Thebans would disagree.

Juniversal · 12th October 2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

As predicted, the Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Pathetic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

That is a different story. The current story is about the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Not the Defense Of Mariage Act. The story you linked to is about the federal judges repeal of DOMA a few months ago. Regardless it's rediculous of them to appeal it. Especially considering Obama supposedly supports it!

INRM · 12th October 2010, 07:26 PM

Well, I'm glad to hear DADT was ordered to a halt by a judge, but I have a feeling it's going to either be: Appealed right to the Supreme Court; Obama will issue an executive order instituting the exact same policy again; or a new bill that will re-institute DADT again.

You'd think a declaration of a law being declared unconstitutional would be enough to render null and void any new bill that is created after the ruling (unless it's an amendment), but under George W. Bush's second administration, this happened all the time.

Pauliesonne · 12th October 2010, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Are you a troll or just an ******* giving his honest opinion?

johnny karate · 12th October 2010, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Sounds like Ken Mehlman just before he came out of the closet.

ProBonoShill · 12th October 2010, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

The Thebans would disagree.

Interesting story, I still don't think it would be practical in today's military.

theprestige · 12th October 2010, 08:05 PM

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 125, requires that any soldier committing sodomy be "punished as directed by a Court Martial" and separated from the service.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue, was a policy created to give soldiers and commanders alike a system of plausible deniability, whereby UCMJ S.125 would not need to be invoked.

I assume that with the abolition of DADT-DHDP, the military will go back to the original policy, whereby commanders are required to investigate and report possible UCMJ violations.

Or have I misunderstood, and this Judge has actually issued an injunction against UCMJ S.125, a statute passed by Congress, and signed by the President?

I mean, the whole point of DADTetc. was that it gives soldiers an excuse to leave the issue alone. As long as UCMJ S.125 is still in effect, being openly gay in the military is a guaranteed ticket to separation, and/or punishment. Getting rid of DADTetc. just removes any shred of plausible deniability for soldiers and commanders.

JoeTheJuggler · 12th October 2010, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 125, requires that any soldier committing sodomy be "punished as directed by a Court Martial" and separated from the service.

And most legal definitions of sodomy include oral sex between consenting adults regardless of gender (i.e. including heterosexuals).

ETA: You could read the injunction itself and find out that your assumption that the injunction means a return to pre-DADT law is wrong. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_dadt.html

ETA: I would add that your description of the origin of DADT is accurate.

quixotecoyote · 12th October 2010, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 125, requires that any soldier committing sodomy be "punished as directed by a Court Martial" and separated from the service.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue, was a policy created to give soldiers and commanders alike a system of plausible deniability, whereby UCMJ S.125 would not need to be invoked.

I assume that with the abolition of DADT-DHDP, the military will go back to the original policy, whereby commanders are required to investigate and report possible UCMJ violations.

Or have I misunderstood, and this Judge has actually issued an injunction against UCMJ S.125, a statute passed by Congress, and signed by the President?

I mean, the whole point of DADTetc. was that it gives soldiers an excuse to leave the issue alone. As long as UCMJ S.125 is still in effect, being openly gay in the military is a guaranteed ticket to separation, and/or punishment. Getting rid of DADTetc. just removes any shred of plausible deniability for soldiers and commanders.

The latter.

Quote:

Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the statute known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act ("the Act" or "the Policy"), found at 10 U.S.C. § 654, and its implementing regulations.1 ... Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended
Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction
barring further enforcement of the Act.

The key phrase there is "implementing regulations," as the judge defines the act in the footnote as:

Quote:

1 The Act, described in greater detail below, provides that any member
of the U.S. Armed Forces who engages in homosexual conduct is subject to
discharge unless the servicemember is able to demonstrate that he or she
has no propensity to engage in "homosexual conduct." Under the Act,
homosexual conduct includes sexual acts with persons of the same sex,
admissions that one is homosexual or bisexual, and attempts to marry a
person of the same sex.

The judge is striking down all regulations that implement the policy that members of the US armed forces who engage in homosexual conduct are subject to discharge.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37183082/D...constitutional

Puppycow · 12th October 2010, 11:49 PM

Interestingly, the public seems to be out ahead on this issue. Two-thirds already favor allowing out gays to serve.

Praktik · 13th October 2010, 07:03 AM

blah blah blah activist judge blah blah blah

SumDood · 13th October 2010, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Please tell me that was a joke. A stupid, unfunny, tasteless joke.

XBoxWarrior · 13th October 2010, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And most legal definitions of sodomy include oral sex between consenting adults regardless of gender (i.e. including heterosexuals).

Yeah, but the bible didn't say it was wrong for a couple hawt babes to clean some carpet...

I'll be in mah bunk.

daenku32 · 13th October 2010, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

As predicted, the Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Pathetic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

All the more proof that Obama is in the pocket of the homosexual agenda.. oh wait. I think I got that wrong.

WildCat · 13th October 2010, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one?

Unabogie · 13th October 2010, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one?

Cooties.

Next question?

Spindrift · 13th October 2010, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one?

They'd want to accessorize their uniforms and that could compromise their camoflage.

The Central Scrutinizer · 13th October 2010, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

You're cute!

cwalner · 13th October 2010, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one?

I partially agree. I think it is proper that the military have certain physical fitness requirements, and that members of those groups will not pass such requirements in the same numbers as non-members. However, if a 75 year old fat man with one arm can meet the physical fitness requirements, he should be allowed in the military.

thaiboxerken · 13th October 2010, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Typical Republican.

sarge · 13th October 2010, 12:37 PM

The military is traditionally afforded considerable latitude on issues of civil rights. The overwhelming majority of middle-aged and older citizens are unfit for military service, and attempting to tailor a program to fit the tiny number of those that are fit isn't worth the cost. Consequence: They are ineligible to serve.

The overwhelming majority of female Soldiers are unfit to complete Ranger school, and the benefits of allowing the odd female that could pass the school to attend would not be worth the costs of doing so. Consequence: Females can't go to Ranger School.

Potential Soldiers that exercise their first amendment right to display tatoos with objectionable messages on their body would present a disruption to good order and discipline if allowed to serve. Consequence: The persons are not allowed to serve, and no First Amendment protection exists.

I am a retired Infantryman/Paratrooper/Ranger. I get it, and I support it. Military efficiency is more important than social engineering. If a proposed change in military policy might have a desirable effect on society, but comes at a cost to military proficiency, then the change is probably unwarranted.

Still, it's hard to believe that it's 2010, and we are discussing state sanctioned bigotry as if the correctness of the practice is simply a matter of opinion. Frankly, the arguments against allowing gays to serve openly sound distressingly similar to the arguments against allowing Blacks to serve in integrated units back in the late 40s. Gays are serving, and probably in roughly the same proportion as they exist in society. In many, many cases, their existence is a very poorly kept secret. After just about a week in Iraq, the importance of a Soldiers sexual preference pales in comparison to their reliabilty as a Soldier. It simply ceases to matter very soon after it becomes known.

I've yet to hear a valid argument based on military preparedness against allowing gays to serve openly. So far as I can tell, the entire argument comes down to a variation of the "gays are icky" dung.

sarge · 13th October 2010, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

I partially agree. I think it is proper that the military have certain physical fitness requirements, and that members of those groups will not pass such requirements in the same numbers as non-members. However, if a 75 year old fat man with one arm can meet the physical fitness requirements, he should be allowed in the military.

I disagree. The desire to serve on the part of an individual does not warrent burdening the entire military with accomodating such an individual. The Armed Services (and the Air Farce and Navy) have standards for induction that are based on the suitability of large populations.

Service is occasionally an obligation. Service is never a right. I support eliminating all artifical barriers to service. Most Black Americans can serve, so being Black should not be a disqualifier. Most women can serve, so being a woman should not be a disqualifier. Most women can not be Infantrymen, so women should not be allowed to attempt to be Infantrymen. There isn't a single living 75 year old fat one-armed dude that could meet the entrance standards, so no 75 year old fat one-armed dude should be allowed to apply.

cwalner · 13th October 2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by sarge

I disagree. The desire to serve on the part of an individual does not warrent burdening the entire military with accomodating such an individual. The Armed Services (and the Air Farce and Navy) have standards for induction that are based on the suitability of large populations.

Service is occasionally an obligation. Service is never a right. I support eliminating all artifical barriers to service. Most Black Americans can serve, so being Black should not be a disqualifier. Most women can serve, so being a woman should not be a disqualifier. Most women can not be Infantrymen, so women should not be allowed to attempt to be Infantrymen. There isn't a single living 75 year old fat one-armed dude that could meet the entrance standards, so no 75 year old fat one-armed dude should be allowed to apply.

Fair enough, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I agree that missing a limb would probably cause other issues besides phyiscal fitness. Besides, it is far more common for those missing limbs to be given a medal and thanked for their heroic service, then honorably discharged instead of entering the military.

However, depending on the cause, I can forsee some mildly obese and older people meeting all standards that the the military would reasonably have without interfering with insfrastructure issues. Why should they be barred entry? Also, why do you think that women can't serve as infantry?

Newtons Bit · 13th October 2010, 01:16 PM

Preface: I'm in favor of overturning DADT.

I have a legal question. The judge stated that "the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment."

Will this have an effect in other parts of the USMCJ such insubordination? What about uniform requirements, such as facial hair, hair styles, modifications of the uniform, etc that are done for political or religious reasons? Did the judge think about these things or was he just geared towards getting a ruling he wanted? What forms of free speech can the government censor?

quixotecoyote · 13th October 2010, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Preface: I'm in favor of overturning DADT.

I have a legal question. The judge stated that "the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment."

Will this have an effect in other parts of the USMCJ such insubordination? What about uniform requirements, such as facial hair, hair styles, modifications of the uniform, etc that are done for political or religious reasons? Did the judge think about these things or was he just geared towards getting a ruling he wanted? What forms of free speech can the government censor?

The judge was quite explicit in the ruling about testing for free speech rights in a military context. The ruling is linked in post 20, so you can read it.

Praktik · 13th October 2010, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Did the judge think about these things or was he just geared towards getting a ruling he wanted?

Oh most assuredly not she was just being all activist-ey

MattusMaximus · 13th October 2010, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Interestingly, the public seems to be out ahead on this issue. Two-thirds already favor allowing out gays to serve.

This is why DADT will inevitably go into the dustbin of history. It's only a matter of time, and as that time approaches, the bigots will become ever more shrill & nasty in their responses.

MattusMaximus · 13th October 2010, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Typical ~~Republican~~ bigot.

Changed that for you.

Please note that the group which brought the lawsuit against the government in the first place is the Log Cabin Republicans.

Let's not paint with too broad a brush, okay?

drkitten · 13th October 2010, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Preface: I'm in favor of overturning DADT.

I have a legal question. The judge stated that "the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment."

Will this have an effect in other parts of the USMCJ such insubordination?

No.

There is a well-established body of case law that describes how freedom of speech applies within the military; the basic idea is that the government may "restrict speech no more than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest."

It's hard to argue that rules against insubordination aren't reasonable to protect the substantial government interest in having orders obeyed.

Quote:

What about uniform requirements, such as facial hair, hair styles, modifications of the uniform, etc that are done for political or religious reasons?

I've never understood how mustaches or dreadlocks were supposed to be a threat to any substantial government interest in the first place, so I'm a bad one to ask about that.

Quote:

Did the judge think about these things

Yes, she thought about those things.

Quote:

What forms of free speech can the government censor?

Any that are "reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest." But that doesn't seem to include statements about whether your partner is an innie or an outie.

12th October 2010, 03:41 PM	#1
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Judge orders halt to Don't Ask, Don't Tell Probably going nowhere but there it is.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

12th October 2010, 03:49 PM	#2
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,860	Originally Posted by Beerina Probably going nowhere but there it is. It always seemed to me that gay rights will most likely come from being ruled constitutionally protected.

12th October 2010, 05:39 PM	#5
Pauliesonne Bi Gi Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: A small town in Northern Ireland called Limavady. Posts: 2,691	Everytime I see that the feelings of american LGBT people are trampled on, a small flicker of something that's actually good happens. I just wished they would happen a damn sight more regular than they actually do.
	__________________ You gotta give 'em hope - Harvey Milk

12th October 2010, 05:40 PM	#6
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	That's great news. A win for common sense and rationality. I can already see the conservatives objecting because an "activist judge bypassed congress!". If it takes "activist judges" to make reasonable decisions that congress wont then so be it.
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

12th October 2010, 06:52 PM	#10
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	As predicted, the Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Pathetic. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

12th October 2010, 05:01 PM	#3
ProBonoShill Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 920	Better late than never I guess. I still don't think it's a good idea for couples regardless of sexual orientation to serve in the same combat unit during a time of war.

12th October 2010, 05:33 PM	#4
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by ProBonoShill I still don't think it's a good idea for couples regardless of sexual orientation to serve in the same combat unit during a time of war. You don't think a gay couple would protect each other? I have news for you.

12th October 2010, 05:40 PM	#7
ProBonoShill Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 920	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior You don't think a gay couple would protect each other? I have news for you. No quite the opposite in fact, I think soldiers would go out of their way to protect their mate and it could compromise the unit.

12th October 2010, 05:54 PM	#8
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,860	I do want to note that there are conservatives in this thread and so far the support for ending DADT is unanimous. Good to see, and good for you, those on the right.

12th October 2010, 06:46 PM	#9
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

12th October 2010, 06:59 PM	#11
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them. Did you ever serve?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

12th October 2010, 07:09 PM	#12
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,198	Originally Posted by ProBonoShill I still don't think it's a good idea for couples regardless of sexual orientation to serve in the same combat unit during a time of war. The Thebans would disagree.

12th October 2010, 07:12 PM	#13
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	Quote: As predicted, the Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Pathetic. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012 That is a different story. The current story is about the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Not the Defense Of Mariage Act. The story you linked to is about the federal judges repeal of DOMA a few months ago. Regardless it's rediculous of them to appeal it. Especially considering Obama supposedly supports it!
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

12th October 2010, 07:26 PM	#14
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Well, I'm glad to hear DADT was ordered to a halt by a judge, but I have a feeling it's going to either be: Appealed right to the Supreme Court; Obama will issue an executive order instituting the exact same policy again; or a new bill that will re-institute DADT again. You'd think a declaration of a law being declared unconstitutional would be enough to render null and void any new bill that is created after the ruling (unless it's an amendment), but under George W. Bush's second administration, this happened all the time.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

12th October 2010, 07:28 PM	#15
Pauliesonne Bi Gi Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: A small town in Northern Ireland called Limavady. Posts: 2,691	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them. Are you a troll or just an ******* giving his honest opinion?
	__________________ You gotta give 'em hope - Harvey Milk

12th October 2010, 07:33 PM	#16
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,833	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them. Sounds like Ken Mehlman just before he came out of the closet.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

12th October 2010, 07:58 PM	#17
ProBonoShill Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 920	Originally Posted by Ryokan The Thebans would disagree. Interesting story, I still don't think it would be practical in today's military.

12th October 2010, 08:05 PM	#18
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,661	The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 125, requires that any soldier committing sodomy be "punished as directed by a Court Martial" and separated from the service. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue, was a policy created to give soldiers and commanders alike a system of plausible deniability, whereby UCMJ S.125 would not need to be invoked. I assume that with the abolition of DADT-DHDP, the military will go back to the original policy, whereby commanders are required to investigate and report possible UCMJ violations. Or have I misunderstood, and this Judge has actually issued an injunction against UCMJ S.125, a statute passed by Congress, and signed by the President? I mean, the whole point of DADTetc. was that it gives soldiers an excuse to leave the issue alone. As long as UCMJ S.125 is still in effect, being openly gay in the military is a guaranteed ticket to separation, and/or punishment. Getting rid of DADTetc. just removes any shred of plausible deniability for soldiers and commanders.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,661	Last edited by theprestige; 12th October 2010 at 08:10 PM.

12th October 2010, 08:15 PM	#19
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by theprestige The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 125, requires that any soldier committing sodomy be "punished as directed by a Court Martial" and separated from the service. And most legal definitions of sodomy include oral sex between consenting adults regardless of gender (i.e. including heterosexuals). ETA: You could read the injunction itself and find out that your assumption that the injunction means a return to pre-DADT law is wrong. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_dadt.html ETA: I would add that your description of the origin of DADT is accurate.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 12th October 2010 at 08:23 PM.

12th October 2010, 08:17 PM	#20
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by theprestige The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 125, requires that any soldier committing sodomy be "punished as directed by a Court Martial" and separated from the service. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue, was a policy created to give soldiers and commanders alike a system of plausible deniability, whereby UCMJ S.125 would not need to be invoked. I assume that with the abolition of DADT-DHDP, the military will go back to the original policy, whereby commanders are required to investigate and report possible UCMJ violations. Or have I misunderstood, and this Judge has actually issued an injunction against UCMJ S.125, a statute passed by Congress, and signed by the President? I mean, the whole point of DADTetc. was that it gives soldiers an excuse to leave the issue alone. As long as UCMJ S.125 is still in effect, being openly gay in the military is a guaranteed ticket to separation, and/or punishment. Getting rid of DADTetc. just removes any shred of plausible deniability for soldiers and commanders. The latter. Quote: Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the statute known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act ("the Act" or "the Policy"), found at 10 U.S.C. § 654, and its implementing regulations.1 ... Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act. The key phrase there is "implementing regulations," as the judge defines the act in the footnote as: Quote: 1 The Act, described in greater detail below, provides that any member of the U.S. Armed Forces who engages in homosexual conduct is subject to discharge unless the servicemember is able to demonstrate that he or she has no propensity to engage in "homosexual conduct." Under the Act, homosexual conduct includes sexual acts with persons of the same sex, admissions that one is homosexual or bisexual, and attempts to marry a person of the same sex. The judge is striking down all regulations that implement the policy that members of the US armed forces who engage in homosexual conduct are subject to discharge. http://www.scribd.com/doc/37183082/D...constitutional
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. Last edited by quixotecoyote; 12th October 2010 at 08:18 PM.

12th October 2010, 11:49 PM	#21
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,789	Interestingly, the public seems to be out ahead on this issue. Two-thirds already favor allowing out gays to serve.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

13th October 2010, 07:03 AM	#22
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,256	blah blah blah activist judge blah blah blah
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

13th October 2010, 07:13 AM	#23
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 707	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them. Please tell me that was a joke. A stupid, unfunny, tasteless joke.

13th October 2010, 07:41 AM	#24
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler And most legal definitions of sodomy include oral sex between consenting adults regardless of gender (i.e. including heterosexuals). Yeah, but the bible didn't say it was wrong for a couple hawt babes to clean some carpet... I'll be in mah bunk.

13th October 2010, 07:49 AM	#25
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,982	Originally Posted by ravdin As predicted, the Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Pathetic. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012 All the more proof that Obama is in the pocket of the homosexual agenda.. oh wait. I think I got that wrong.

13th October 2010, 08:10 AM	#26
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one?

13th October 2010, 08:19 AM	#27
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,860	Originally Posted by WildCat Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one? Cooties. Next question?

13th October 2010, 08:31 AM	#28
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,458	Originally Posted by WildCat Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one? They'd want to accessorize their uniforms and that could compromise their camoflage.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

13th October 2010, 08:33 AM	#29
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them. You're cute!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

13th October 2010, 08:50 AM	#30
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Originally Posted by WildCat Except there's legitimate military reasons to discriminate against those groups. No one has found such a reason to bar gays, maybe you'll be the first one? I partially agree. I think it is proper that the military have certain physical fitness requirements, and that members of those groups will not pass such requirements in the same numbers as non-members. However, if a 75 year old fat man with one arm can meet the physical fitness requirements, he should be allowed in the military.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

13th October 2010, 08:56 AM	#31
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,988	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt. I guess I'll head downtown tomorrow to observe the great rush of the fabulous to the recruiting office. This is what the fags were waiting for,right? Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them. Typical Republican.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

13th October 2010, 12:37 PM	#32
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,360	The military is traditionally afforded considerable latitude on issues of civil rights. The overwhelming majority of middle-aged and older citizens are unfit for military service, and attempting to tailor a program to fit the tiny number of those that are fit isn't worth the cost. Consequence: They are ineligible to serve. The overwhelming majority of female Soldiers are unfit to complete Ranger school, and the benefits of allowing the odd female that could pass the school to attend would not be worth the costs of doing so. Consequence: Females can't go to Ranger School. Potential Soldiers that exercise their first amendment right to display tatoos with objectionable messages on their body would present a disruption to good order and discipline if allowed to serve. Consequence: The persons are not allowed to serve, and no First Amendment protection exists. I am a retired Infantryman/Paratrooper/Ranger. I get it, and I support it. Military efficiency is more important than social engineering. If a proposed change in military policy might have a desirable effect on society, but comes at a cost to military proficiency, then the change is probably unwarranted. Still, it's hard to believe that it's 2010, and we are discussing state sanctioned bigotry as if the correctness of the practice is simply a matter of opinion. Frankly, the arguments against allowing gays to serve openly sound distressingly similar to the arguments against allowing Blacks to serve in integrated units back in the late 40s. Gays are serving, and probably in roughly the same proportion as they exist in society. In many, many cases, their existence is a very poorly kept secret. After just about a week in Iraq, the importance of a Soldiers sexual preference pales in comparison to their reliabilty as a Soldier. It simply ceases to matter very soon after it becomes known. I've yet to hear a valid argument based on military preparedness against allowing gays to serve openly. So far as I can tell, the entire argument comes down to a variation of the "gays are icky" dung.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

13th October 2010, 12:43 PM	#33
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,360	Originally Posted by cwalner I partially agree. I think it is proper that the military have certain physical fitness requirements, and that members of those groups will not pass such requirements in the same numbers as non-members. However, if a 75 year old fat man with one arm can meet the physical fitness requirements, he should be allowed in the military. I disagree. The desire to serve on the part of an individual does not warrent burdening the entire military with accomodating such an individual. The Armed Services (and the Air Farce and Navy) have standards for induction that are based on the suitability of large populations. Service is occasionally an obligation. Service is never a right. I support eliminating all artifical barriers to service. Most Black Americans can serve, so being Black should not be a disqualifier. Most women can serve, so being a woman should not be a disqualifier. Most women can not be Infantrymen, so women should not be allowed to attempt to be Infantrymen. There isn't a single living 75 year old fat one-armed dude that could meet the entrance standards, so no 75 year old fat one-armed dude should be allowed to apply.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

13th October 2010, 12:58 PM	#34
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Originally Posted by sarge I disagree. The desire to serve on the part of an individual does not warrent burdening the entire military with accomodating such an individual. The Armed Services (and the Air Farce and Navy) have standards for induction that are based on the suitability of large populations. Service is occasionally an obligation. Service is never a right. I support eliminating all artifical barriers to service. Most Black Americans can serve, so being Black should not be a disqualifier. Most women can serve, so being a woman should not be a disqualifier. Most women can not be Infantrymen, so women should not be allowed to attempt to be Infantrymen. There isn't a single living 75 year old fat one-armed dude that could meet the entrance standards, so no 75 year old fat one-armed dude should be allowed to apply. Fair enough, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I agree that missing a limb would probably cause other issues besides phyiscal fitness. Besides, it is far more common for those missing limbs to be given a medal and thanked for their heroic service, then honorably discharged instead of entering the military. However, depending on the cause, I can forsee some mildly obese and older people meeting all standards that the the military would reasonably have without interfering with insfrastructure issues. Why should they be barred entry? Also, why do you think that women can't serve as infantry?
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

13th October 2010, 01:16 PM	#35
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,916	Preface: I'm in favor of overturning DADT. I have a legal question. The judge stated that "the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment." Will this have an effect in other parts of the USMCJ such insubordination? What about uniform requirements, such as facial hair, hair styles, modifications of the uniform, etc that are done for political or religious reasons? Did the judge think about these things or was he just geared towards getting a ruling he wanted? What forms of free speech can the government censor?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,916	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.