DADT part 2

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
Since shag was awarded the "last word" by our mods in the other thread, I have no choice but to start a new thread to announce the latest court ruling against DADT:

Judge declares U.S. military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy openly banning gay service members unconstitutional [Updated]
September 9, 2010 | 6:07 pm
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don't ask, don't tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.

Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.

The ruling comes just over a month after a federal judge in San Francisco tossed out California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, providing back-to-back victories for gay rights advocates seeking policy changes in the courts that have eluded them in Congress and at the ballot box. The case was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest political organization for gays in the GOP, in 2004.

[Updated at 6:30 p.m.: "As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane ‘don't ask, don't tell’ statute violates the Constitution,” said R.Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans & Liberty Education Fund. “Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican service members, but all American service members."]

The ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell," which remains stalled in the Senate despite support from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.

President Obama has called the ban a threat to national security, and the U.S. House in May passed legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” if an ongoing Pentagon study determines the military can adapt to the change without harming defense readiness.

Despite Obama’s criticism of the policy, the Justice Department vigorously defended “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ and even tried to undercut the case with a technical legal challenge over whether the named plaintiffs were dues-paying members of the organization that filed the lawsuit: the Log Cabin Republicans.

-- Phil Willon in Riverside County

The verdict is in, the court rules DADT unconstitutional.
 
Personally, I don't care if there are gay people in the military.

If that gay sniper covering me likes the way my ass looks, by God, he will do all he can to make sure it doesn't get shot off. :lol:

And no, I'm not gay. Right or wrong, I just don't have a problem with them.
 
The verdict is in, the court rules DADT unconstitutional.

Yes the verdict is in; this specific judge ruled that DADT is unconstitutional.

Which is a LOOONG way from DADT truly being unconstitutional...unless you reject the Rule of Law in favor of the Rule of Man; the law is whatever someone in a position of authority says it is.
 
Personally, I don't care if there are gay people in the military.

But I'm sure we'd both agree that it's a decision that is best left to the military or political representatives to make and not an activist judge.
 
No argument there. I say leave it up to the Brass. Though, I wouldn't involve politicians in the decision.

I know a few gay service members and they are just as capable of doing their jobs as their straight colleagues.
 
If I had to jump into a foxhole on top of another serviceman, I'd feel much better if I was sure he didn't enjoy the experience.:D

KS

Virtually all decisions from the judges in La-La land are suspect due to the activist stance of that court.
 
So what are you saying? That you wouldn't get into a foxhole with a service member of the opposite sex? A woman?

I've been around a military installation or two in my life, and I have NEVER EVER seen any homosexual acts in progress, nor have I heard of any. Maybe I've been sheltered...?

IMHO, gay service members are just as professional as straight service members. I've seen my share of opposite sex acts, though. You wouldn't believe the screwing that happens overseas.
 
Honestly, my personal opinions aside... this doesn't mean anything at all. It's not the first fine it's happened, and every time the supreme court rules in favor of the government. Essentially they say the military is a separate subset of society for which the constitution is applied on a limited basis. They will almost certainly rule against this judgement on grounds that the judicial branch is not qualified to make the determination of how DADT and the general ban on homosexuals affects military readiness. It's an issue to be resolved in the legislative branch if it must be forced, or in the military itself should it end up being a willing transition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

Now, I do believe the 100% ban is not long for this world- they will begin the process of eliminating it within 2-3 years assuming this administration makes it a priority as it would appear they are. I would guess it will be removed in stages- much how the military took 9 years to fulling integrate and eliminate segregation.

My personal opinion- You will have substantial issues where there are group showers and open floor plan barracks. Combat arms will have issues. I think one of the problems here are the possibility of soldier "A" hitting on soldier "B", then the two having to use a community shower. It's going to amount to a LOT of sexual harassment claims and a great number of other issues- I personally would not enter a community shower with a guy who has shown interest in me. That would be like expecting a woman to shower with a man who's hit on her and she wants absolutely nothing to do with.
 
Yes the verdict is in; this specific judge ruled that DADT is unconstitutional.

Which is a LOOONG way from DADT truly being unconstitutional...unless you reject the Rule of Law in favor of the Rule of Man; the law is whatever someone in a position of authority says it is.

So, you reject the parts of our constitution that you don't like. Got it.
 

Members online

Back
Top