Obama and the Gay Military...

[quarky]

You overestimate yourself, sir (or ma'am).

Probably. I get all bent out of shape in discussions about the military.

 

[Phrost]

You shouldn't, we're not all bad people.

I happen to be, but most soldiers are much more polite and well-adjusted as members of society than many civilians.

 

[linusrichard]

Again, there is a difference between thinking something is a bad law and thinking something is an unconstitutional law.

Sure, but there's also a difference between thinking DOMA is constitutional and spending your resources trying to convince the Supreme Court it's constitutional. If it's constitutional, the SCOTUS can figure that out without the SG's help, I would think. The only reason for the SG to be there is if they have some interest in the law being held constitutional. And the only reason for that is if they think DOMA isn't a bad law. As far as I can tell.

 

[quarky]

You shouldn't, we're not all bad people.

I happen to be, but most soldiers are much more polite and well-adjusted as members of society than many civilians.

We'll see about that in time. I'm glad the draft is gone, at least. Perhaps diplomacy will win the day.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps diplomacy will win the day.

For what problem? Diplomacy does not work in a vacuum, it operates within a sea of other factors, to include force, economics, information, progaganda, and more.

DR

 

[Phrost]

We'll see about that in time. I'm glad the draft is gone, at least. Perhaps diplomacy will win the day.

Diplomacy is meaningless without the threat of force backing it up.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, it is.

Cool, they do list 100+ cases in the authority section, it i going to take a while to read through them, especially since different cases will be cited for different reasons, ar ethere specifics as to the 'gay' and 'pedophilia' you were saying they 'compared' to?

Your quote
"In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia."

Now they may have compared cases, but until I get to the arguments, i am not sure if the most accurate statement would be 'they used precedent in cases involving incest and pedophilia', or if they truely make the comparison in the arguments. Lots to read.

 

[MikeMangum]

I'll believe it when it happens.

It would take Obama all of ten minutes to type up and sign an executive order ending DADT. He doesn't, despite his claim that he will...Eventually...Someday...But not today.

Actually, it would have taken Clinton all of ten minutes to type up an order allowing gays in the military, but now because DADT is a legislated issue, the legislature has to change it.

So basically, Clinton made it harder to allow gays to openly serve in the military because he wanted a compromise that allowed him to partially, almost, sorta keep his campaign promise.

I would much rather Congress spend its time repealing DADT than trying to expropriate more of our money, spend more of our money, or take over more of our economy. It always bothered me whenever I would read about linguists (badly needed by the military!) being cashiered because they were gay.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It would take Obama all of ten minutes to type up and sign an executive order ending DADT.

You are in error, sir, per the United States Constitution. This is why President Clinton ran into a buzz saw when he tried this. He didn't first drum up enough Congressional support, which had he done, the JCS testimony would have been laughed at in Congress: the Generals and Admirals there testifying would have had to say "yessir/ma'am, Senators" or resign.

Congress didn't. They chose to do that balance of powers thing.

From Article I Section VIII, powers of Congress:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

DR

 

[Alt+F4]

Cool, they do list 100+ cases in the authority section, it i going to take a while to read through them, especially since different cases will be cited for different reasons, ar ethere specifics as to the 'gay' and 'pedophilia' you were saying they 'compared' to?

Your quote
"In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia."

Now they may have compared cases, but until I get to the arguments, i am not sure if the most accurate statement would be 'they used precedent in cases involving incest and pedophilia', or if they truely make the comparison in the arguments. Lots to read.

My take on it was that the administration was comparing those cases to gay marriage to make the argument that one state (and the federal government) does not have respect the legality of out-of-state marriages if it goes against it's own law. If that is the case, how the heck do you explain Loving v. Virginia?

 

[GreyICE]

Once upon a time, I had hope that gay men were less likely to be to militaristic; less likely to kill someone for the sake of patriotism. That's what I liked about gays.

Now, I'm faced with a new ironic form of homophobia.
Gays are willing to be macho-dicks; rednecks; hicks.

Rape has always played a role in war.

I'm very dissapointed with homosexuals that want to be soldiers. Especially in these bogus wars that are sucking us all dry.

Wow, it's almost like homosexuality is genetic, and not the result of some sort of value system or upbringing, and that therefore homosexuals don't share much in common besides an attraction to people of their own gender, despite what cultural stereotypes might imply.

Eh, crazy talk.

 

[Toke]

Wow, it's almost like homosexuality is genetic, and not the result of some sort of value system or upbringing, and that therefore homosexuals don't share much in common besides an attraction to people of their own gender, despite what cultural stereotypes might imply.

Eh, crazy talk.

How many hairdressers and fashion designers do the army really need?

 

[quarky]

Wow, it's almost like homosexuality is genetic, and not the result of some sort of value system or upbringing, and that therefore homosexuals don't share much in common besides an attraction to people of their own gender, despite what cultural stereotypes might imply.

Eh, crazy talk.

Yeah, I get it.
But 40 years ago, the only 'out' gays tended to be the effeminate ones, so the stereotypes existed. They were like females trapped in male bodies, and tended to have more feminine sensibilities. Similarly, the early 'outed' lesbians tended to be more like males, trapped in female bodies. These early stereotypes have slowly fallen apart, as more gays have come out and it has become much more mainstream.

It may be hard to believe how different this was 40 plus years ago. Even in college, I wasn't aware of a single homosexual.

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah, I get it.
But 40 years ago, the only 'out' gays tended to be the effeminate ones, so the stereotypes existed. They were like females trapped in male bodies, and tended to have more feminine sensibilities. Similarly, the early 'outed' lesbians tended to be more like males, trapped in female bodies. These early stereotypes have slowly fallen apart, as more gays have come out and it has become much more mainstream.

It may be hard to believe how different this was 40 plus years ago. Even in college, I wasn't aware of a single homosexual.

I am aware of this, but it truly is difficult to remember the effects of persecution on a group.

The individuals who stood up to that bigotry also rejected the cultural stereotypes that they saw as causing that bigotry - the ideals of manliness, the rigid gender roles, etc. Others, of course, did not react that way - they remained closeted (often, y'know, serving in the military). They married. They denied their feelings, or adapted to live a conventional life around them, or just didn't tell anyone.

Now that there's so much less persecution (though it is hardly gone), there are more homosexuals who are content to simply be 'John Q. Smith, Staff Sargent, father of two adopted children, who bowls on weekends and, oh yeah, is gay.'

More on the thread topic, lump me in with the 'liberals' condemning Obama here. Not a happy camper.

 

[Darth Rotor]

More on the thread topic, lump me in with the 'liberals' condemning Obama here. Not a happy camper.

Besides a quick "welcome back" comment, is this the most pressing problem he was faced with when he took over?
No. My guess in the conversation with Alt+F4 may be wrong, but I don't think this topic is dead. Back burner, more likely.

DR

 

[TragicMonkey]

Besides a quick "welcome back" comment, is this the most pressing problem he was faced with when he took over?

For now we eat the air, promise-crammed...

 

[Bill Thompson]

Well, that's a huge honkin' heaping steaming pile of fail, right there.

First of all, because women are serving on the front lines, in combat positions, and are doing a heluva job.

Second, because a number of posters on this thread who are ok with repealing DADT are active duty or retired military.

Third, it is absolutely despicable to think that what happened to Ms. Jones is just to be expected because men "have nothing to lose." Despicable, disgusting, and a whole bunch of other adjectives that would likely breach the MA.

Fourth, it doesn't even matter, because Ms. Jones wasn't gang-raped by US soldiers, she was gang-raped by mercen--excuse me, "contractors." Nor did it happen in combat, nor under particularly stressful conditions, nor...You know what? The comparison is so abominable that I'm not going to continue explaining why it's a load of crap.

You fail. No soup for you. NEXT!

Women are not serving along side men in combat.

When I was on the aircraft carrier we were once on a joint exercise with the coast guard. There was a woman surgen onboard. If we were called into a war zone, it was known that we would have to wait until a transport flew on board and carried her off before we could go into war.

I have not heard if times have changed since those days.

 

[Bill Thompson]

That is such a stereotype: That Gay men are all about sex. I hope you do know that Men, regardless of sexuality, do not always act on their urges. To tell you the truth, Sleeping with another soldier and risking getting booted, is less likely to occur than a gay guy fantasizing on his own time.

No stereotype. Men are all about sex. Gay men are still men.

 

[Dancing David]

My take on it was that the administration was comparing those cases to gay marriage to make the argument that one state (and the federal government) does not have respect the legality of out-of-state marriages if it goes against it's own law. If that is the case, how the heck do you explain Loving v. Virginia?

Um each case will be quoted in the context of the specific point of the brief in that context, it is big slog and I haven't done more than skim.

Loving vs, Virginia is cited in the context of pg 32 (I have to sign up to downlaod the PDF, which would allow me to copy),Loving vs, Virginia is cited in the section regarding discrimination based upon sex (I assume they mean phsyical gender) and they use it as an example of where SCOTUS ruled the state could not prohibit interacial marriage. I guess because it was obviously discriminatory.

The brief then claims that courts have rejected the contention of similarity to Loving vs, Virginia, in that homosexuals are not a 'suspect class'.

I happen to disagree with this argument.

 

[Dancing David]

HuffPo here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/obama-administration-doma_n_260969.html

"The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The department is obligated "to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences," Schmaler added.

So HUH?