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

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by bynmdsue



The same way the 9/11 terrorists were typical Muslims?

Maybe if 95% of Muslims were terrorists.
Almost all elected Repubicans oppose the repeal of DADT and "the homosexual agenda".

 

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by bynmdsue



The same way the 9/11 terrorists were typical Muslims?

And once again, I have become a Liberal? (Or at least, a non-Republican)
I can't believe there are so many mind-readers on a skeptic forum who haven't won the MDC yet.

 

[eeyore1954]

Maybe if 95% of Muslims were terrorists.
Almost all elected Repubicans oppose the repeal of DADT and "the homosexual agenda".

But 95% of republicans would not say

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.

Just like most Muslims are not terrorists

That is why the comment did not come from a typical republican.

 

[quixotecoyote]

But 95% of republicans would not say



Just like most Muslims are not terrorists

That is why the comment did not come from a typical republican.

I think that if you oppose gay marriage, and support DADT, yet don't make verbal slurs openly, you still qualify as a bigot in the category of the latter even though the former can be discrimination wrought politely.

 

[leftysergeant]

Or have I misunderstood, and this Judge has actually issued an injunction against UCMJ S.125, a statute passed by Congress, and signed by the President?

I found nothing in the UCMJ which specificlly forbids being homosexual. The acts are prohibited.

Any revision of the law will have to address the acts. That is a sticking point. There are even heterosexual acts that most of us perform regularly that are prohibited under the UCMJ. I think the whole issue needs to be addressed before the DADT rules are scrapped. That is why DoJ is appealing.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is no doubt that some women would make great infantrywomen, since I've met a few that would. But basic physiology dictates that in an infantry unit, doing infantry things, the large majority of them wouldn't be able to keep up physically. I'm not just talking about PT tests and unit standards, but doing all the things that infantry do, like carrying a 200 lb. man wearing gear, going 15 miles with 75 lb. of kit, digging a foxhole as fast as possible, etc. I'm not sure (and I do mean "not sure", not trying to say "no") that it would be worth the effort for the very few that would be able to meet those official and unofficial standards.

Take a look at the graduating class of your nearest high school. Do you really think that the average male teenage blob of blubber out of that lot is up to it?

 

[leftysergeant]

Awright, now onto allowing the disabled and the obese and the elderly sign up so that no-one gets their widdle feewins hurt.

Extraneous garbage. Noone is suggesting that gays who cannot meet the physical standards need to be accepted. A lot of gays do meet those standards. If you do not understand how the military works, please do not post your absurdities here.

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?

Your misanthropy is irrelevant. There already are gays in the service. Some of them are damned good soldiers. Maybe you should enlist and see if you have what it takes, since you seem so interested in preserving the fighting force.

(Some drill sergeant could probably use a good laugh.)

Now there's no obstacle to them signing up. Well except for the myriad STD's the average homo carries around inside them.

Having any untreatable condition eliminates an enlistee. Herpes and AIDS are disqualifying now even for heteros.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But 95% of republicans would not say



Just like most Muslims are not terrorists

That is why the comment did not come from a typical republican.

The only difference is that he lacks the filter. Most Republicans hate homosexuals.

 

[cwalner]

The only difference is that he lacks the filter. Most Republicans hate homosexuals.

I disagree. A sizable portion of Republicans fear homosexuals. They express that fear in a way that appears as hate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I disagree. A sizable portion of Republicans fear homosexuals. They express that fear in a way that appears as hate.

Fear and hate are indistinguishable when it comes to bigotry.

 

[Dragoonster]

It's the ultimate laugh-out-loud/schadenfreude/laugh-at-Nobel-Prize. That Obama is preempted in his supposed support of eliminating DADT by courts is utterly hilarious. That his admin would also fight against the courts here is absolutely surreal.

Obama is a joke. All talk and no do. And no balls. Just who is he supposed to represent at this point? Center-rightests? Wiretaps, rendition, state secrets, Israel-pandering...just when is he going to suddenly champion the liberal-lefty agenda? Newsflash Obama--at this rate you aren't getting a second term, from me at least.

Worst black president ever.

 

[cwalner]

Worst black president ever.

I could claim he is the best black president ever.

We would both be half right

 

[leftysergeant]

It appears to me that he wants to be sure that, before this reaches the SCOTUS level, a new policy will be in place so that the ruling is moot, and the court will have no other course than to confirm that he has already corrected the situation, thus locking in his way of handling it.

There are details to be dealt with.

Actually, the whole subject of sodomy as addressed inthe UCMJ needs review and some revision. It even outlaws a lot of common heterosexual practices. I see no reason for the military to be concerned with anything that does not constitue rape or abuse of position.

 

[Juniversal]

It's the ultimate laugh-out-loud/schadenfreude/laugh-at-Nobel-Prize. That Obama is preempted in his supposed support of eliminating DADT by courts is utterly hilarious. That his admin would also fight against the courts here is absolutely surreal.

Obama is a joke. All talk and no do. And no balls. Just who is he supposed to represent at this point? Center-rightests? Wiretaps, rendition, state secrets, Israel-pandering...just when is he going to suddenly champion the liberal-lefty agenda? Newsflash Obama--at this rate you aren't getting a second term, from me at least.

Worst black president ever.

I feel your pain but you'd be hard pressed to find a better alternative lol. Especially in the midst of the the foaming at the mouth, unhinged tea party/Republican types. I don't even think Obama is a "bad" president in the grand scheme of things. Just more of been there done that.

And apparently he supports repeal through the legislative process and has made it known that he wouldn't support an alternative means of repeal.

 

[patchbunny]

Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

WASHINGTON – A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point.

So I wonder what happens if an openly gay person joins up, and then the ruling gets nixed?

 

[drkitten]

It appears to me that he wants to be sure that, before this reaches the SCOTUS level, a new policy will be in place so that the ruling is moot, and the court will have no other course than to confirm that he has already corrected the situation, thus locking in his way of handling it.

Since this paragraph is, legally speaking, gibberish, I doubt that's what he wants.

If the ruling is mooted, then the court won't touch it at all except to confirm that it's moot. Nothing will be "locked" at all as there will be no decision issued, and the court won't confirm nothin'.

There are details to be dealt with.

Details like "actually getting the Senate off its fat ass"? This particular scenario also assumes that Obama either has a hell of a lot more control over the Senate than he has, or that he's irrationally thinking that he can use his awesome powers of awesome to sway the new Tea Bagging senators to his will.

Actually, the whole subject of sodomy as addressed inthe UCMJ needs review and some revision. It even outlaws a lot of common heterosexual practices. I see no reason for the military to be concerned with anything that does not constitue rape or abuse of position.

Well, they see no reason to take your opinion seriously, either.

Esprit de corps and morale are legitimate aspects to military readiness. That's why "fraternization" is a crime, even if it's consensual. It creates the appearance of partiality and compromises the chain of command.

Playing cards with the wrong person can -- justifiably and legally -- be a court-martial offense. And for good reason; there were some interesting cases of this sort of abuse in WWII. Officers were -- literally -- playing poker with their subordinates after lights-out in violation of orders to the contrary. When the officers lost, they would avoid paying their debts by turning in their fellow players for administrative punishment.

You can imagine what this kind of betrayal-of-trust does to the unit cohesion. The modern rules are very strict about what kind of social contact you can have precisely so that everyone feels comfortable around everyone else and trusts everyone else.

Yes, there's a possibly a high bathwater-to-baby ratio here; because a few officers welched on their gambling debts sixty years ago, no officer anywhere can play poker with an enlisted man. But that's exactly the kind of thing that makes the military different, and the SCOTUS respects that difference in the degree of deference they allow "military readiness" to control policy.

 

[drkitten]

So I wonder what happens if an openly gay person joins up, and then the ruling gets nixed?

Entry-level separation, probably instantly.

 

[cwalner]

And apparently he supports repeal through the legislative process and has made it known that he wouldn't support an alternative means of repeal.

So basically, you are saying that Obama is opposing the court ruling, because he does not want to give congress (specifically his fellow Dems) a free pass on the issue. He wants to force them to stand up and do the right thing in a public vote on the floor.

I can also see why this ruling would be bad for the Dems in the long run. If we see how effectively the Republicans have used Roe vs Wade as a marketing tool to drum up activist support in the past, resovling DADT in a similar fashion would give them more fodder for similar marketing in the future.

However, if DADT were overturned via congress, it would be done so according to democratic principles and the will of the people, yada yada. This would put the issue to rest a lot more completely than a court ruling and would more clearly remove this issue from being a wedge issue that the Reps could use.

I had not looked at it this way before. Thanks for that bit of perspective, Juniversal.

 

[Juniversal]

So basically, you are saying that Obama is opposing the court ruling, because he does not want to give congress (specifically his fellow Dems) a free pass on the issue. He wants to force them to stand up and do the right thing in a public vote on the floor.

I can also see why this ruling would be bad for the Dems in the long run. If we see how effectively the Republicans have used Roe vs Wade as a marketing tool to drum up activist support in the past, resovling DADT in a similar fashion would give them more fodder for similar marketing in the future.

However, if DADT were overturned via congress, it would be done so according to democratic principles and the will of the people, yada yada. This would put the issue to rest a lot more completely than a court ruling and would more clearly remove this issue from being a wedge issue that the Reps could use.

I had not looked at it this way before. Thanks for that bit of perspective, Juniversal.

From my understanding that is a large part of the reasoning. drkitten had a good explanation in this thread. Also the artical in that thread also mentions that,

President Obama reiterated his stance during this year’s State of the Union address, saying, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

The requisite phrase there is “work with Congress.” President Obama has repeatedly stated his intention to halt DADT, but only through Congress and not by executive order or through the courts.

 

[applecorped]

The halt has been halted.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...back-in-force-after-appeals-court-issues-stay

"A federal appeals court in California granted a temporary stay on Wednesday, reversing a worldwide injunction against enforcement of the US military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...after-appeals-court-issues-stay#nextParagraph The action means the Pentagon’s ban on service members who are openly homosexual is, once again, in full force."