Obama and the Gay Military...

[LarianLeQuella]

Well, as someone who served for 20 years, I could care less about what someone does in the privacy of their own home, or off duty, as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do the mission. people with a misguided sense of authority and morality are the ones creating problems.

I would say that homosexuals, like atheists, are as diverse as any group of human beings. There are some outstanding individuals who I would be (am) proud to serve with, and there are others who should leave of their own volition before being forced out. Ther sexuality has nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see the military get rid of the don't ask, don't tell policy, and make it part of EEO training as well. It's the immature and bigoted that get their panties in a bunch worrying about this sort of stuff. I'd rather focus on getting the mission accomplished!

 

[Stout]

where "the left" means the right wing party and "the right" means the other right-wing party.

In the US so it would seem, however out Canadian right wing party(s) OKayed both gays in the military and gay marriage

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, as someone who served for 20 years, I could care less about what someone does in the privacy of their own home, or off duty, as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do the mission. people with a misguided sense of authority and morality are the ones creating problems.

I would say that homosexuals, like atheists, are as diverse as any group of human beings. There are some outstanding individuals who I would be (am) proud to serve with, and there are others who should leave of their own volition before being forced out. Ther sexuality has nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see the military get rid of the don't ask, don't tell policy, and make it part of EEO training as well. It's the immature and bigoted that get their panties in a bunch worrying about this sort of stuff. I'd rather focus on getting the mission accomplished!

Exactly. During my time in the service, I spent 6 years working alongside a lesbian. I didn't know for certain till my enlistment was almost up (she told me when I moved into her spare bedroom in preparation for the end of my enlistment). We maintained a professional relationship at work, were good friends at home - and neither of us cared what the other did in his/her spare time as none of that affected our work center. I didn't particularly care for her gf...but that's beside the point... lol

 

[Terry]

In the US so it would seem, however out Canadian right wing party(s) OKayed both gays in the military and gay marriage

Yeah, it was specifically a comment about my perception of the US political system, as an ex-Brit.

 

[Francesca R]

That how I feel when thinking about education in Britian. How can a public school be private and how can a private school be public? It boggles my mind.

Public schools are privately funded and charge fees. Schools that are not public schools are publicly funded and generally open to the public. Unless they are private schools in which case they are selective and expensive but usually not quite as toffish as the public ones.

Does that help? Didn't think so.

 

[drkitten]

No. That authority is not a stand-alone; it is one of 5 "and" statements, not "or" statements.

"Ands" and "ors" don't have their usual logical meaning in legislation.

I stand by my statement. It would take a one-sentence executive order to make DADT unenforceable. It would only take another sentence to make attempting to enforce DADT into an article 92 crash-and-burn offense.

 

[funk de fino]

When I joined up it was against the rules to be gay and you were admin discharged if found out. A lot of people I knew (who were not gay) used it to their advantage to get out of serving when they decided they wanted out but could not afford to buy themselves out.

It should be easy enough to just get rid of the rule IMO. I met some of the most racist, bigoted and homophobic folk in my time in the Forces. Luckily they were in the minority in my line of work. One guy who I did find out was gay, just before he left, would have been the last one that you would have thought.

Is this a personal freedom issue where the land of the free is not quite so free?

 

[quarky]

This issue is a nice distraction for the larger issue of what the military actually does.

Please stop defending my freedom. Its not working out.

 

[Garrette]

"Ands" and "ors" don't have their usual logical meaning in legislation.

I stand by my statement. It would take a one-sentence executive order to make DADT unenforceable. It would only take another sentence to make attempting to enforce DADT into an article 92 crash-and-burn offense.

Fair enough, but I'll stand by mine, too, with the usual caveat that I will defer to someone with the proper credentials.

 

[Garrette]

Please stop defending my freedom. Its not working out.

Of course it is. We've got your freedoms (all of 'em) tied up in a nice bundle and stacked with everyone else's out back in the Patriot Shed.

 

[Bill Thompson]

what exactly is wrong with "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Isn't it better than the system it replaced?

 

[Cleon]

what exactly is wrong with "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Already succinctly answered by Terry.

Isn't it better than the system it replaced?

Not really, no. Under the old system, if they found out you were gay, you got kicked out. Under the new system, if they find out you're gay, you get kicked out.

 

[drkitten]

what exactly is wrong with "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Isn't it better than the system it replaced?

It's better, but still not good enough.

Allowing blacks to ride only in the back of the bus is better than not allowing them to ride at all,.... but it's still not a policy that should be acceptable to any civilized person. Allowing blacks to attend college only at designated schools such as Howard is better than not educating them at all, but still not an acceptable policy. Allowing women to inherit property but not to purchase it (Married Women's Property Act 1870) is better than not allowing women to inherit property at all, but still not good enough or acceptable.

 

[drkitten]

Fair enough, but I'll stand by mine, too, with the usual caveat that I will defer to someone with the proper credentials.

Will you settle for law professors from UCSB?

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy itself, as codified by Congress, also grants authority to
the Department of Defense to determine the procedures under which investigations,
separation proceedings, and other personnel actions under the authority of 10 U.S.C. §
654 will be carried out. Section 654(b) states: "A member of the armed forces shall be
separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with
procedures set forth in such regulation." Under this section, the Secretary of Defense has
discretion to determine the specific manner in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be
implemented. Furthermore, the statute does not direct the military to make any particular
findings of prohibited conduct or statements; it only states that members shall be
separated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary if such findings are made. The
Secretary has broad authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those
findings may be made.

[...]

Although Congress has power to make rules to govern the military, it shares that power
with the President, who, as Commander-in-Chief, has power to direct the operation of
military forces. If Congress were understood to have sole power to remove members of
the military from the chain of command operating under the direction of the President,
particularly in a time of national emergency, the President’s ability to carry out his
constitutional obligations would be impaired. Therefore, the constitutional authority of
the Commander-in-Chief includes at least shared authority to ensure that members of the
military essential to national security are not removed from duty.

[...]

Department of Defense regulations governing the separation of members under 10 U.S.C.
§ 654 preserve discretion within the military chain of command to retain members under
certain circumstances. “Enlisted Administrative Separations,” for example, states at
Enclosure 3, paragraph 8.d (7)(c), page 21: “Nothing in these procedures . . . precludes
retention of a Service member for a limited period of time in the interests of national
security as authorized by the Secretary concerned.”

(This is from the Palm Center at UCSB.)

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Obama can't do it with an Executive Order; DADT is a piece legislation that requires legislation to overturn it.

At the same time, he's got a bulletproof majority of Democrats in Congress.

If not now, then when?

 

[D'rok]

"Ands" and "ors" don't have their usual logical meaning in legislation.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Like "shall" vs. "may", "and" vs. "or" is a very important distinction in legislation.

 

[pgwenthold]

At the same time, he's got a bulletproof majority of Democrats in Congress.

If not now, then when?

Moreover, even if he doesn't have the authority to overturn it, he certainly has the authority to not enforce it. In fact, the administration is already openly doing that with an immigration law they don't like. They acknowledge the law, but have put a hiatus on enforcing it because they are planning to try to get it overturned.

 

[Verde]

An elite, all-gay division of troops would be handy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8

 

[Garrette]

Will you settle for law professors from UCSB?




(This is from the Palm Center at UCSB.)

Yes.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Already succinctly answered by Terry.



Not really, no. Under the old system, if they found out you were gay, you got kicked out. Under the new system, if they find out you're gay, you get kicked out.

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender. Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

I just think that if you do not know, you should not protest. And people who seem to be the most vocal about insisting gays are open in the military would never and have never been in the military.

That is one angle. Here is another. Sure it is a problem with men being homophobic. But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic. What do you expect? Do you expect that all men go to sensitivity training classes? It is the military! It is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It exists to break and destroy and defend. It is a monarchy by design. And that works best. Too bad that it is not fair. Life is not fair. It never was and it never will be.

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.