Obama and the Gay Military...

[linusrichard]

[qimg]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg[/qimg]

IF YOU READ MY WHOLE POST YOU WOULD SEE THAT I DID ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. IN FACT, ONCE RACE WAS TREATED AS A FACTOR IN TREATING SOLDIERS DIFFERENTLY AND THE MILITARY DID NOT BOW TO PUBLIC PRESSURE TO CHANGE BUT CONDUCTED THEIR OWN STUDIES.

ALSO, THE COMMANDERS IN THE MILITARY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO THE END OF GETTING THEIR JOB DONE. AND IF RACE OR RELIGION OR THE COLOR OF SOMEONE'S EYES SOMEHOW CANE INTO PLAY, AS THEY SEE IT, THEN THEY WOULD USE THAT AS A MEANS TO GETTING A WAR WON.

I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. READ THE WHOLE POST INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO SOMETHING ONE SENTENCE AT A TIME.

Nominated!



(Just kidding! Welcome to ignore!)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Nominated!



(Just kidding! Welcome to ignore!)

Seconded.

 

[quarky]

Poor and rural areas of the U.S. have provided a disproportionately high number of soldiers.
The young men are more likely to be racist, sexist, and homophobic than their peers from more modern, wealthier areas. The military likely has to weigh the issue to maximize the number of compatible recruits. They can't afford to piss off the rednecks.

Now the equation is changing. Television shows have helped. Gay is less horrifying.

 

[zooterkin]

ALSO, I NEVER SAID IT WAS BETTER IF EVERYONE HAD THE SAME SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Really?

It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender.

 

[Fishstick]

Looks pretty close.

That just proves a lot of people also make that mistake .

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I think the important thing is that everyone in the military does their job and does it to the best of their ability. That should be what earns you priveleges. Since the gays in the military are already doing their jobs and doing them well, they should have every right that anyone else has. That includes the right to not have to hide or pretend to be something they aren't. If someone is so marginal in thier job performance that the sexual orientation of the person next to them will make the difference between them doing thier job or not doing that job, then that person is the problem and needs to be let go.

In a totally different vein, I don't care who's watching my backside, and what they would do to it in a non-military sense, as long as they take good care of it and help me keep it from getting dead when the bullets start flying. I'll do the same for them.

A.

 

[linusrichard]

That just proves a lot of people also make that mistake .

Do you also point out the mistake people make when they say, "big deal," and they mean that something is actually not a big deal?

 

[Fishstick]

Do you also point out the mistake people make when they say, "big deal," and they mean that something is actually not a big deal?

Eh, I could care less.

 

[ponderingturtle]

IF YOU READ MY WHOLE POST YOU WOULD SEE THAT I DID ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. IN FACT, ONCE RACE WAS TREATED AS A FACTOR IN TREATING SOLDIERS DIFFERENTLY AND THE MILITARY DID NOT BOW TO PUBLIC PRESSURE TO CHANGE BUT CONDUCTED THEIR OWN STUDIES.

ALSO, THE COMMANDERS IN THE MILITARY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO THE END OF GETTING THEIR JOB DONE. AND IF RACE OR RELIGION OR THE COLOR OF SOMEONE'S EYES SOMEHOW CANE INTO PLAY, AS THEY SEE IT, THEN THEY WOULD USE THAT AS A MEANS TO GETTING A WAR WON.

Good to see the army standing up to the president like that then.

Doesn't fit with any version of history I have ever heard of but good to see it I guess.

 

[Dancing David]

I would like to agree with this, but the available evidence shows otherwise. Obama has stated his opposition to gay marriage is based on his Christian beliefs. He did not speak out when Prop 8 proponents used his image and quotes in their propoganda.

In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. Sure, this might has come from Bush leftovers in the Justice Department but if that was the case why didn't the President distance himself (or say anything) about this?

Why believe he is going to do something about DADT?

Do you have a citation on this
"In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. "

 

[Dancing David]

It is neither your nor my call. We have no authority to tell the generals and admirals what is fair and what is not and what gets the job done or not. If the generals and admirals think this or that is what it takes to get the war done and done quickly then they are given the authority to do whatever they want.

i see , now you throw out the rule book again, Sheesh.

They have total freedom and legal right.

No they don't.

It does not matter what it involves with few exceptions. If they think someone should be shot for sleeping at his post, then that person is shot.

if that is in the field manual.

The foot solder can protest a direct order but if that order is within a wide degree of reasonability, the foot solder is taken away for disobeying.

I can tell or I strongly sense you have not been in the military. I also sense that you think you are too intelligent to be in the miltiary as well.

I see your amazing psychic powers at work again.

I was in the miltary.

Let me give you an example of the world we are talking about. Blacks were once segregated in the military. And it was this way a for long time. It did not matter that society said it was not fair.

And, no I am not racist.

It did not change because of public pressure. It changed because the military conducted studies to prove that black solders were just as intelligent and capable as whites. Then the segregation ended.

And really, your sources on this are?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you have a citation on this
"In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. "

They looked at other instances where marriage between two people is fundamentaly illegal, and these are becuase of the relationship between the people involved or the age. As they argued against a legal right to marriage they had to compare it to other instances where marriage is prevented.

 

[drkitten]

It is neither your nor my call. We have no authority to tell the generals and admirals what is fair and what is not and what gets the job done or not. If the generals and admirals think this or that is what it takes to get the war done and done quickly then they are given the authority to do whatever they want. They have total freedom and legal right. It does not matter what it involves with few exceptions. If they think someone should be shot for sleeping at his post, then that person is shot.

Interesting example. In the traditional usage of "interesting" that means "completely and utterly wrong."

A sentry sleeping at his post is, in fact, punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I quote from article 113, which is the relevant bit:

Article 113—Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout

“Any sentinel or look-out who is found drunk or sleeping upon his post, or leaves it before he is regularly relieved, shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.”

So, no. A soldier can indeed be shot for sleeping at his post,.... but not on the mere say-so of the generals.

First, he can only be shot if the offense occurred in time of war. In time of peace, it is at worst ten years confinement.

Second, he can only be shot (even then) on the orders of a court-martial ("as a court-martial may direct"), which again puts it out of the hands of the generals and into the hands of the officers serving as the court-martial board (and attempting to improperly influence a court-martial board is itself a crash-and-burn offense). Furthermore, only a general court-martial has the authority to issue death sentences, and all such sentences are subject to the usual appeals process, going if necessary all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is most definitely NOT a military organization. Furthermore, the President (who is also not military) has the authority to intervene at any point and cease the trial -- or indeed to pardon the accused and lift any threat of punishment whatsoever.

So, basically, you have no idea what the standards are for punitive actions in the military.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Interesting example. In the traditional usage of "interesting" that means "completely and utterly wrong."

A sentry sleeping at his post is, in fact, punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I quote from article 113, which is the relevant bit:



So, no. A soldier can indeed be shot for sleeping at his post,.... but not on the mere say-so of the generals.

First, he can only be shot if the offense occurred in time of war. In time of peace, it is at worst ten years confinement.

Second, he can only be shot (even then) on the orders of a court-martial ("as a court-martial may direct"), which again puts it out of the hands of the generals and into the hands of the officers serving as the court-martial board (and attempting to improperly influence a court-martial board is itself a crash-and-burn offense). Furthermore, only a general court-martial has the authority to issue death sentences, and all such sentences are subject to the usual appeals process, going if necessary all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is most definitely NOT a military organization. Furthermore, the President (who is also not military) has the authority to intervene at any point and cease the trial -- or indeed to pardon the accused and lift any threat of punishment whatsoever.

So, basically, you have no idea what the standards are for punitive actions in the military.

He probably slept through that part of BMT...

 

[Alt+F4]

Do you have a citation on this
"In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. "

The case involved the Justice Department trying to dismiss the first same sex marriage case filed in federal court. From the government's brief:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Bolding mine.

In my opinion, the following is the most egregious and hypocritical part:

To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.

Obama doesn't think gays are deserving of government resources because well....they are gay! So much for health care reform.

Here's a blog with a link to the PDF of the entire brief.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

 

[Darth Rotor]

I would like to agree with this, but the available evidence shows otherwise. Obama has stated his opposition to gay marriage is based on his Christian beliefs. He did not speak out when Prop 8 proponents used his image and quotes in their propoganda.

Maybe he knows how and when to pick his fights. He is building political capital and credibility as he grows into the job, or I am completely missing my guess on his potential to become a good president.

In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. Sure, this might has come from Bush leftovers in the Justice Department but if that was the case why didn't the President distance himself (or say anything) about this?

Timing. Why shoot a bullet before the target comes into range? This is a round more productively spent in either the 2010 or 2012 elections. Obama is a politician, and has been a professional (local, then national) at it for well over a decade, yes?

Why believe he is going to do something about DADT?

DADT and Marriage aren't the same issue. He can broach DADT without touching a hair on his stand regarding Marriage.

Timing is the key to its success, as Bill Clinton's attempt in 1993 so clearly demonstrated.

DR

 

[Alt+F4]

Maybe he knows how and when to pick his fights. He is building political capital and credibility as he grows into the job, or I am completely missing my guess on his potential to become a good president.

Or maybe Obama considers gays to be a bunch of freaks who's humanity is at the bottom of his list of priorities. I think there is more evidence for this than him building political capital. There is a big difference between political timing and actively arguing that gays have no right to marry.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Or maybe Obama considers gays to be a bunch of freaks who's humanity is at the bottom of his list of priorities.

No to the first, yes to the second.

I don't believe that President Obama considers gays a bunch of freaks.

I agree with your take on his list of priorities, at the moment, holding those down his list a ways.

Whether or not that changes in time is anyone's guess.

I don't think your pessimism is warranted, unless you are impatient, or do not believe he'll hold his Congressional advantage after the 2010 elections. I don't see the GOP getting sorted out by then, so he's got until 2011-2012.
ETA:

To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.

Obama doesn't think gays are deserving of government resources because well....they are gay! So much for health care reform.

While he's accountable for his federal attorneys and their briefs, how are you certain that you have correctly summarized President Obama's views on this? Are you certain that he was briefed in detail before this went to SC? If so, OK, I'd find your summary accurate, if a bit hyperbolic.

DR

 

[Dancing David]

They looked at other instances where marriage between two people is fundamentaly illegal, and these are becuase of the relationship between the people involved or the age. As they argued against a legal right to marriage they had to compare it to other instances where marriage is prevented.

That still does not support what Alt+F4 said in the quote. I will have to look for it.

 

[Dancing David]

The case involved the Justice Department trying to dismiss the first same sex marriage case filed in federal court. From the government's brief:



Bolding mine.

In my opinion, the following is the most egregious and hypocritical part:



Obama doesn't think gays are deserving of government resources because well....they are gay! So much for health care reform.

Here's a blog with a link to the PDF of the entire brief.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

Thanks, that will take a while to read!