Obama and the Gay Military...

[Complexity]

So, Complexity - your problem isn't that Obama's not doing anything...it's that he's not doing it fast enough?

As I said, it appears that he's taken one real step with regards to civil rights - one out of a thousand, speaking figuratively. There are essential steps, such as marriage equality, that he is opposed to. That alone is enough to prevent my lending him my support.

He is failing or behaving badly in several aspects of governance - I listed a few of the ways in a recent post in this thread.

Perhaps he'll turn things around and really surprise me, but nothing that he's done since gaining office suggests that this will happen.

I have already decided to withhold my vote from all Republicans (my usual position) and nearly all incumbents (something new) in the next election. He's already running out of time.

I don't think he's left himself enough room to manuver to have a chance of winning my support.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I hope that I am wrong about Obama. Perhaps he will accomplish some or much of what I think he should. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.

Even if Obama does everything he's promised or hinted to do with regard to civil rights, it won't go far enough - he's opposed to marriage for gays and lesbians. I also have several issues with him apart from civil rights.

Do you like to drink tea?

I'm not eligible for (and not interested in) military service. What I am eligible for (and no longer interested in) is engaging in research that would support or enable aspects of the government, defense industry, intelligence community, or military. The problems that I research have significant applications in some intelligence and military areas.

If they don't want people like me, they won't get me - in any capacity.

Understandable. As far as I know, there is no prohibition against homosexual contractors, but I appreciate that you are making a stand on principle.

DR

 

[MikeMangum]

Obama doesn't need a great amount of political backing to repeal DADT as there's no real laws he must have passed - he does, however, have to play his hand right.

Actually, as mentioned earlier in this thread (IIRC), DADT was legislation. Before DADT, the President could have simply signed an executive order allowing gays to openly serve*, but now that it has been legislated, the President cannot simply modify at his own discretion existing law.

* I don't know what, if any, parts of the UCMJ would need to be changed. That would have required legislative action anyway, I believe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, as mentioned earlier in this thread (IIRC), DADT was legislation. Before DADT, the President could have simply signed an executive order allowing gays to openly serve*, but now that it has been legislated, the President cannot simply modify at his own discretion existing law.

Actually, no, he could not, as the Congress was happy to point out to President Clinton at the time, the law at the time being "it is illegal to be a homosexual and serve in the Armed Forces." (Paraphrase of the regs at the time).

The rules by which the military are manned and funded come from Congress, not the White House. This was brought up around the time of testimony by ADM Jeremiah and General Powell by Senators from both parties. I recall watching as much of the testimony as I could at the time, CSPAN had some of it.

The Commander in Chief bit and executive responsiblity are not one and the same as the authority and responsiblity for writing all of the rules and laws.

From Article 8 of the Constitution, in support of that point being made back then, and the Powers of Congress:

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;​

The balance of powers is a potential check on any executive order, which I think is why President Clinton didn't resort to that.

Like him or not, he isn't stupid. I think he saw the DADT as a step forward, which it was, but it certainly left a lot of loose ends hanging, and left a lot of people unsatisfied.

DR

 

[Dr. Keith]

If I am wrong and we go along with what I have in mind, there is no great loss.

If you are wrong and we go along with what you have in mind there is tremendous, uncalculatable and horrific loss.

The military is not in the business of fairness and social correctness and taking into consideration not hurting the feelings of their servicemen and women. If that is the case with the military in your country, then arguably your country is less secure.

On the flip side, we overlook the "A" in "DADT". Granting the drill sergeants and petty officers the green flag to ask will cause more stress to homosexuals than liberty and freedom and happiness. The way things are currently, they cannot ask. It can be argued that is better and more civil this way. You are in the military to serve, not chat about your same sex lovers and you are not in the miltary to ask about it either. Changing DADT changes that and that change cuts both ways.

Something else. If you have to dissect some ones posting into short sentences, sound bytes and even words, you have lost. Taking sentences out of context and attacking what you INVENT to be what they say -- instead of the final point they are actually making -- is attacking the arguer, not the argument. Just because you do not like what I say (because it makes you see the world is not fair) does not mean I am incorrect. If you refuse to listen to someone's opposing point and only want to attack them personally, or HOW they post, or even their sexual orientation, instead of their ideas, then you have admitted to me that you are on the loosing side of the issue and you lack the courage to admit it.

Something else. If there is even a debate on this issue, it is not going to happen. Perception is everything. If military preceive it to be a bad idea, it is a bad idea. It is the preception that makes it wrong.

I suppose when you can't respond directly to the arguments against your reasoning it is best to just reword your reasons and post them again. Actually addressing the counter arguments would be a waste of time.

Your reasoning is still wrong, even with new words.

ETA: Damn, I missed the whole Pascal's Wager angle. Nice work cwalner!

 

[MikeMangum]

Actually, no, he could not, as the Congress was happy to point out to President Clinton at the time, the law at the time being "it is illegal to be a homosexual and serve in the Armed Forces." (Paraphrase of the regs at the time).

Close, but no cigar. The President could not change the UCMJ with an executive order, which means that he could not remove the portion of the UCMJ that criminalizes the act of sodomy, but he could have changed policy to allow people who are gay (a state of being, not an act) to serve in the military. They would still have been subject to court martial for any act of sodomy, but if they served out their term without committing an act of sodomy, it would have been completely legal.

Personally, I think the UCMJ should be changed, but for those gays who were willing to serve in the military under the condition that they do not engage in sodomy while enlisted/commissioned, at least they would have had the choice to serve while openly gay, legally.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Close, but no cigar. The President could not change the UCMJ with an executive order, which means that he could not remove the portion of the UCMJ that criminalizes the act of sodomy, but he could have changed policy to allow people who are gay (a state of being, not an act) to serve in the military. They would still have been subject to court martial for any act of sodomy, but if they served out their term without committing an act of sodomy, it would have been completely legal.

Personally, I think the UCMJ should be changed, but for those gays who were willing to serve in the military under the condition that they do not engage in sodomy while enlisted/commissioned, at least they would have had the choice to serve while openly gay, legally.

But this isn't about sodomy, but the DADT law, which is separate. He could make it unenforced, ruling that all service members are too important to the service to be let go for being homosexual, but it wouldn't change the law if the next president repealed that order. Then all the out homosexuals would be kicked out.

I can see a good political reason for building this to be a change from with in the military instead of imposed on the military. The latter would play into the democrats are weak on defense line.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Close, but no cigar. The President could not change the UCMJ with an executive order, which means that he could not remove the portion of the UCMJ that criminalizes the act of sodomy, but he could have changed policy to allow people who are gay (a state of being, not an act) to serve in the military. They would still have been subject to court martial for any act of sodomy, but if they served out their term without committing an act of sodomy, it would have been completely legal.

Personally, I think the UCMJ should be changed, but for those gays who were willing to serve in the military under the condition that they do not engage in sodomy while enlisted/commissioned, at least they would have had the choice to serve while openly gay, legally.

That digs into all kinds of privacy issues (ref: Lawrence vs Texas ).

I would find it easy to believe something like:

Obama and the Dems do away with DADT.
Obama and the Military heads decide to rely on privacy (such as Lawrence vs Texas), therefore - as long as members don't discuss acts of sodomy, there is nothing the UCMJ can be applied to (this is, in fact, how it currently operates for straight members of the armed forces who engage in sodomy).

 

[Darth Rotor]

Close, but no cigar. The President could not change the UCMJ with an executive order, which means that he could not remove the portion of the UCMJ that criminalizes the act of sodomy, but he could have changed policy to allow people who are gay (a state of
being, not an act) to serve in the military.

Actually, that makes no sense, which is part of why he didn't such issue an executive order when the UCMJ clearly prohibited homosexuality, and other personnel regulation barred homosexuality and military service. (Used to be part of the questionairre for a security clearance, which it isn't anymore, thanks to DADT).

Here is a problem: how do you determine homosexuality? How do you determine celibacy? More he said, she said? It is also a bit unfair, don't you think, to demand of a portion of the force that they HAVE to remain celibate, and the rest don't. Granted, there was at the time, on the books, a UCMJ offense against adultery, which I used to laugh about given the number of people who cheated on their spouses, not to mention had sex outside of wedlock. That rule seemed to be enforced only when one service member was banging the spouse of another service member, but it didn't always get onto a charge sheet even then, from what I saw.

But rather than use an executive order, he took the effort to get something that would not be challengeable: a law/rule change to what you mentioned above, with the agreement of Congress, which showed up as DADT.

They would still have been subject to court martial for any act of sodomy, but if they served out their term without committing an act of sodomy, it would have been completely legal.

It isn't just about sodomy in the UCMJ. There are (were) more regulations than that at stake, though it's been over a decade since I had to look up the MILPERSMANUAL citation for such things.

Personally, I think the UCMJ should be changed,

I suspect it will be once the law/rules change, which appears to be in the works to happen, not just get talked about.

ETA: also, PT made some good points on this.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here is the actual regulation

(b) Policy.— 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 regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

link

That link has a more about including a rational for why such a law is constitutional and not a violation of peoples rights. It also has the provision that it does not have to be followed if that is in the best interest of the military.

In say the past year, how many people have been thrown out because of DADT?

 

[cwalner]

Here is the actual regulation

link

That link has a more about including a rational for why such a law is constitutional and not a violation of peoples rights. It also has the provision that it does not have to be followed if that is in the best interest of the military.

In say the past year, how many people have been thrown out because of DADT?

Wow, that is actually worse than I thought. The way the regulation is worded, it targets sexual identity, not actions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here is the actual regulation
link

That link has a more about including a rational for why such a law is constitutional and not a violation of peoples rights. It also has the provision that it does not have to be followed if that is in the best interest of the military.

In say the past year, how many people have been thrown out because of DADT?

The cite is after the DADT decision, it might be instructive to include similar regulations prior to DADT.

For Mike ... please note ...

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

An interesting piece of dogma, if you are interested: paragraph 4 is often expressed as "the mission of the Armed Forces is to fight and win the nation's wars" by officers with whom I served. That language often came up as people wrestled with the entire range of operations called OOTW and MOOTW -- operations other than war, such as NEO, relief, etc. I find it of personal interest that this primary purpose does not include the language of war prevention, which is what having a prepared force often does.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wow, that is actually worse than I thought. The way the regulation is worded, it targets sexual identity, not actions.

You might want to look up the rules before DADT was passed. This was progress.

Back when the draft was alive and well, more than one prospective draftee stated that he was a homosexual, which could preclude conscription. Don't know how many false claims of that nature were made.

If you look at that one way, it was use of the law for a particular person's benefit, if said person wasn't interested in being drafted. For those hohosexuals who wished to volunteer, the rule boiled down to "don't bother."

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, that is actually worse than I thought. The way the regulation is worded, it targets sexual identity, not actions.

It specifically targets both. It doesn't matter if you get caught identifying as gay or bi, or engaged in same sex sex, either way they can kick you out. Well the latter you have more defenses against.

 

[cwalner]

You might want to look up the rules before DADT was passed. This was progress.

DR

Oh, I know. I was under the (apparantly mistaken) impression, though, that DADT dealt solely with actions, not identity. According to the link though, the exceptions for being drummed out for gay sex are primarily focused around proving that it was a one-time incident, and you are not really gay.

To me, this shows that it really is about identity, not about actions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, I know. I was under the (apparantly mistaken) impression, though, that DADT dealt solely with actions, not identity. According to the link though, the exceptions for being drummed out for gay sex are primarily focused around proving that it was a one-time incident, and you are not really gay.

To me, this shows that it really is about identity, not about actions.

I read it as both, not either or.

The "how gay is gay" question leaves us in the dark regarding bisexuals, does it not?

"I'm not gay, you can ask my wife."

"Actually, Commander, we didn't have to ask her. She came and told us you are a homosexual. Your cheating on her with a male sailor is what clued her in."

Yes, I knew a man who was sent packing over that sort of exchange. Methinks patterns of behavior were also considered.

DR

 

[zooterkin]

For those hohosexuals who wished to volunteer,

They would be the very gay ones, laughing all the time?

 

[Fishstick]

They would be the very gay ones, laughing all the time?

They only come out during christmas time.

 

[Darth Rotor]

They would be the very gay ones, laughing all the time?

oops, must proofread better ...

 

[MikeMangum]

But this isn't about sodomy, but the DADT law, which is separate.

Actually, no. I was referring to Clinton's options before DADT. He could have signed an executive order allowing homosexuals to serve in the military (but could not change the UCMJ regarding sodomy) which would have created strong pressure to fix the damn UCMJ. My point was that before DADT, the president had more options with regard to gays in the military than after the piece of legislation known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was passed.