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

[Puppycow]

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

 

[Praktik]

blah blah blah activist judge blah blah blah

 

[SumDood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.

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.

Did the judge think about these things

Yes, she thought about those things.

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.