Judge Orders Injunction of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
About damn time, IMO.
I am the first in my family to be fortunate enough to not have to serve, so I can't comment on how it would affect the troops. However, I can take a guess that less troops being kicked out for sexual orientation = more manpower where it counts. Also, if I were serving, I would be a hell of lot more afraid of the hundreds of thousands of ways my buddies and I could get killed on a battlefield then whether or not the guy in the bunk next to me is homo.
No matter your opinion, all of our troops have my unwavering respect, and I can only hope this injunction will put the final nail in the coffin of a bigoted and homophobic policy. That homo you let serve as he or she wants might save your hetero life someday.
It shows that you have never Earned to wear the Uniform.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
^ that's what I'm wondering too but I'm to busy to read the article.
I drive a silver car wrote:^ that's what I'm wondering too but I'm to busy to read the article.
Basically, a federal judge issued an injunction against DADT, now there are 60 days for an appeal to be filed. So it isnt dead yet, Im sure there will be an appeal filed, but time will tell. They are cautioning soldiers not to "come out" because of this, so yeah, if you were to come out, it probably wont end like you would want it to. If DADT dies, the armed forces would be like any other employer in the US, unable to discriminate against age, gender, sexual orientation etc. etc.
Oh, and Infidel, what exactly are you talking about? I consider myself fortunate to make the choice to not join the military. Just because I choose not to serve in the armed forces doesn't make me any less of an American.
Romance has no place in the barracks, so why does orientation even need to be acknowledged. I am all for gay equality, but DADT is the way to go in the military. Serve your country, not your libido.
gays and lesbians were told today that they can openly join the millitary. but then they go. but know that this could be overturned.
im of the mind that i just dont care personally. two gay guys doing it are about the same as a guy nailling an ugly girl. all i care is if you can do the job or not. but there are still allot of people that when they see a gay guy or girl its like all they can picture is them having sex or something instead of just talking to them like a human being and stop worrying about what they do behind closed doors. would be like me going into an interview and having the employer ask what sexual positions do i like, what you do in your bedroom shouldn't matter.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:two gay guys doing it are about the same as a guy nailling an ugly girl.
Truly sig-worthy!
As for me, I don't care much one way or the other...gayness happens, to about 10% of the population depending upon whose information you go by.
What perturbs me is instances like this where the judiciary is essentially legislating from the bench. It's not only a violation of checks and balances, in this case it's a very sudden and real obstruction to day-to-day military recruitment and operation. Should this policy be changed, it should be in a deliberate, careful process by the military itself, not suddenly thrown down from on high by a judge with lofty aspirations.
Quiklilcav wrote:I'm still at a loss as to why they would want to limit the military enlistment by such a thing. Anyone who is strong enough in character to go into battle where they may give their life defending their country has enough strength to deal with turning down a potential advance by a homosexual without feeling threatened. If anyone thinks a soldier would feel uncomfortable around someone because of their sexual orientation should question whether or not that soldier can hold it together on the front lines.
Lastly, if anyone wants to sign up to defend their country, and has the mental and physical fitness to do so, they should be welcomed with open arms, and given the respect that serving their country deserves. All other concerns are secondary IMO.
Agreed. I was going to make a similar point, but see it's not necessary after your response.
I work on Wall Street, but didn't force you to take out a loan you couldn't afford.
KustmAce wrote:Romance has no place in the barracks, so why does orientation even need to be acknowledged. I am all for gay equality, but DADT is the way to go in the military. Serve your country, not your libido.
The policy is not about 2 soldiers doing it - it is with a soldier and ANYONE of the same sex doing it. Or more specifically, is about who you are attracted to. It has nothing to do with actual behavior(you could for example be a celebrant homosexual), and everything to do with WHO you are.
I believe a good quote I heard was "Gay soldiers loose their lives defending the rights of others in an Army that denies them their own."
How about this guy? Think he has no place in the military?
Quote:
The F-15E Strike Eagle veteran
Lt Col Victor Fehrenbach has served in the US Air Force for nearly two decades, flying in F15-E Strike Eagles in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Having flown 88 combat missions, he has been honoured for heroism for an attack on an enemy ambush site under heavy fire.
He has been taking legal action to fight dismissal after being outed two years ago, while defending himself against allegations of sexual assault. If he is fired before his 20-year mark he will lose his pension.
"My parents were both air force. I grew up on an air force base.
"My case first came up in May 2008. I was basically outed by a third party. This person accused me of a crime, made up a false allegation.
"In the process of telling the truth and proving my innocence, I revealed my sexual orientations and that triggered things. Four months later I was served with the papers. In April 2009 I went before the administrative board.
"For almost another year it's gone through the administrative process.
"I've always thought 'don't ask, don't tell' was wrong and unconstitutional. But I just thought I would keep my private life private and do my military job. I never intended to out myself.
"A lot of people don't realise you can't tell your friends, you can't tell your mother. They might inadvertently say something. Somebody could overhear a conversation.
"Every day you are looking over your shoulder, wondering if you have said something wrong, if you are in a relationship you are constantly thinking of stories to explain if someone spots you together. You feel any day it could happen.
"I flew fighter jets. It required 100% concentration. Somebody else could talk to a buddy about personal problems. We just can't do that.
"I've got a lot of messages from people I've been in combat with. They don't care. They would go to war with me tomorrow.
"We are in the middle of two wars - we need every single bright capable talented person we keep throwing out.
"If I was fired tomorrow, I'd have served 95% of my commitment, but you've got to do the full 20 to get a pension. I would get nothing for my 19 years."
He tried to hide it - until he had to defend against false sexual assault charges. He has served his country damn well. He deserves the best this country has to offer him for his service. He earned it. Instead, you think should @!#$ on him for being attracted to men?! Think about it. This policy is, and always has been - total BS. I hope this miserable excuse for a policy stays dead.
Mikey (drpdcavi) wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:I'm still at a loss as to why they would want to limit the military enlistment by such a thing. Anyone who is strong enough in character to go into battle where they may give their life defending their country has enough strength to deal with turning down a potential advance by a homosexual without feeling threatened. If anyone thinks a soldier would feel uncomfortable around someone because of their sexual orientation should question whether or not that soldier can hold it together on the front lines.
Lastly, if anyone wants to sign up to defend their country, and has the mental and physical fitness to do so, they should be welcomed with open arms, and given the respect that serving their country deserves. All other concerns are secondary IMO.
Agreed. I was going to make a similar point, but see it's not necessary after your response.
Also agreed.
It's an archaic policy, and I think it's offensive to the sensibilties of the modern soldier, in that It infers servicepeople simply cannot handle or deal with the presence of homosexuals. I am sure that, as in any strata of society, there are in the armed services neanderthal-ish knuckle-draggers whose homophobia makes them squirm at the thought of homosexuals in their midst, but they simply have GOT to be small minority. Policy that suits only them is bad policy.
Well, it was a judge's ruling, and very disruptive. What's needed is to change miltary policy. A judge's spur-of-the-moment ruling is not the right way to implement this.
One important aspect about the US military and that is when you're sworn in, you swear to not tell a lie once in as part of the Cadet Honor Code. Today, we have a system that will basically lie just to cover their ass to not get discharged or deny application. So basically, you're starting off with a lie, and well... that lowers moral even further in general.
Now, seeing how certain people who apply for this job have low acceptance for groups who don't look like them or don't follow the sexual preference as them; I can see why strategically it is better to keep "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
As enlistment goes down and people figures out what we fight for is for offence and for the wrong reasons, creating limits on who could serves is just less heads for the human arsenal and that is not a wise strategy within itself.
It will be interesting how this all turns out. Maybe the camouflage will have more style? lulz
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:One important aspect about the US military and that is when you're sworn in, you swear to not tell a lie once in as part of the Cadet Honor Code. Today, we have a system that will basically lie just to cover their ass to not get discharged or deny application. So basically, you're starting off with a lie, and well... that lowers moral even further in general.
Good point. And in turn, anyone who does learn the homosexual nature of a comrade has to then withhold information too, essentially another lie. You are right in that it sets the stage for more moral questions...if it's "ok" to lie about this or that, how do we employ a standard of truth that evewryone can readily understand?
I haven't spent time verifying the voracity of this site, but if true, it provides an interesting viewpoint on the much ballyhooed "religion of peace" (islam) Turns out that being a homosexual can get you killed under Islamic law. (not just beat up by some rednecks)
Someone said that having gays serve openly in our military would infuriate the muzzies. Now I am torn on the issue.
http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/violent-muslim-homophobia-jihad-against.html
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
20 years from now all of this would be a joke. People will look back and say I just don't see how people cared about this. As for now it's knocking down that wall and paving the way as we all know from history that is trial and error.
Personally DADT is just the simplest solution as of now.
I always wonder why no one ever approaches this from the other direction.
Imagine you are living in a gender segregated barracks. You are not allowed to have members of the opposite sex in your living area. Sucks to be a heterosexual, since you can't even have your significant other over to watch a movie. But as a homosexual, you are able to not only spend time with your significant other, but also lock yourself in your room and spend the weekend together. Why is that fair? Yes, a rule could be put out that doesn't allow individuals into another persons room, but honestly, is that really enforceable, considering just about every barracks is either 2 person rooms or more? So now, the barracks would have to be divided somehow to ensure the equal treatment of EVERYONE living there, meaning, the heterosexuals need to be afforded the same rights as the homosexuals (with regards to visitation). Imagine living in a
CHU in Iraq. You can't have the opposite sex in your CHU after 2200hrs (or whatever the policy is where you are). If you're homosexual, no problem, since whoever is in there with you is the same sex. Again, is that fair? Will the military then provide rooms for heterosexual couples? What about mixed gender rooms in the barracks? I doubt it (just picture the term "sexual harassment" flying every which direction).
I have no problem with homosexuality. It's not my thing, and as long as I'm not getting hit on, that's fine. I don't have a problem with anyone who is gay who wants to serve, I think it's great. My problem with repealing this is that, if done, the homosexuals will actually have MORE rights than heterosexuals when it comes to relationships. Granted, relationships in the military are somewhat limited to begin with, since there are plenty of restrictions, but the point still stands- without this policy in place to provide punishment for relationships, the rights of every heterosexual serving are diminished.
James Cahill wrote:I always wonder why no one ever approaches this from the other direction.
Imagine you are living in a gender segregated barracks. You are not allowed to have members of the opposite sex in your living area. Sucks to be a heterosexual, since you can't even have your significant other over to watch a movie. But as a homosexual, you are able to not only spend time with your significant other, but also lock yourself in your room and spend the weekend together. Why is that fair? Yes, a rule could be put out that doesn't allow individuals into another persons room, but honestly, is that really enforceable, considering just about every barracks is either 2 person rooms or more? So now, the barracks would have to be divided somehow to ensure the equal treatment of EVERYONE living there, meaning, the heterosexuals need to be afforded the same rights as the homosexuals (with regards to visitation). Imagine living in a CHU in Iraq. You can't have the opposite sex in your CHU after 2200hrs (or whatever the policy is where you are). If you're homosexual, no problem, since whoever is in there with you is the same sex. Again, is that fair? Will the military then provide rooms for heterosexual couples? What about mixed gender rooms in the barracks? I doubt it (just picture the term "sexual harassment" flying every which direction).
I have no problem with homosexuality. It's not my thing, and as long as I'm not getting hit on, that's fine. I don't have a problem with anyone who is gay who wants to serve, I think it's great. My problem with repealing this is that, if done, the homosexuals will actually have MORE rights than heterosexuals when it comes to relationships. Granted, relationships in the military are somewhat limited to begin with, since there are plenty of restrictions, but the point still stands- without this policy in place to provide punishment for relationships, the rights of every heterosexual serving are diminished.
thats kinda making a big assumption that because someone is gay he's going have a boyfriend in the same platoon. and be bunkmates as well. there are women in the millitary and they wind up getting pregnant while deployed so its pretty obvious that heterosexuals have found ways around those rules allready.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
They don't have to be in the same platoon or even the same unit. And they don't have to be roommates either. My point is that in a gender segregated barracks, the possibility of having your girlfriend or boyfriend over to spend time with is not allowed. Allowing "open" sexuality pretty much eliminates that rule for homosexuals, since creating and enforcing a "no relationship" rule is pretty much impossible.
And you're correct, there are females getting pregnant while deployed, but who's to say there isn't any homosexual couples having sex either? With the current DADT policy, and the current cohabitation and visitation policy for persons of the opposite sex, there are restrictions in place. Take away the DADT, and now there is only a restriction on heterosexuals. (BTW- the current General Order 1 does not allow cohabitation, but does allow sex, except not with civilians, US or otherwise)
Honestly, do you really think that if DADT is rescinded, there will be some sort of policy written that restricts relationships in the barracks? Nope. That would be construed as discriminatory against homosexuals, since there are already policies for cohabitation in place.
I really see this as a bad thing if only from a policy perspective. Either keep it the way it is, or be prepared to see heterosexuals fighting to get the same rights, and plenty of utterly useless policies being thrown at us, even further restricting us as a fighting force.
id be really easy to just make a policy of no fooling around. catch two dudes fooling around you punish them the same as a male and female fooling around. it doesnt have to be difficult. being openly gay doesnt mean you are allowed to fool around. youd have the same rights as anyone else. so you'd have the same punishments as someone else i dont see how it could be construed as discriminatory if its the same exact rules as the heterosexuals.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Valid point. But, currently there is no "no relationship" policy that I know of (other than fraternization between different ranks). PVT Bob and PVT Sally can be together if they want, outside of the barracks of course. Now, if DADT is repealed, PVT Tom and PVT Harry can easily have a relationship, even in the barracks (since there is no policy against it). As it stands right now, there really is nothing to prevent them from taking a shower together, or cuddling on the couch in the day room.
So, there are two things wrong with this picture-
1) PVT Bob and PVT Sally CANNOT co-habitate like PVT Tom and PVT Harry
2) everyone else living in the barracks is now able to see PVT Tom and PVT Harry in a relationship
Problem with fixing item #1- you either have to allow the heterosexuals to live together (not gonna happen due to sexual harassment issues) or ban homosexuals from living together (not gonna happen due to discrimination)
Problem with fixing item #2- either prohibit relationships altogether (not gonna happen for too many reasons) or restrict the homosexual relationship to behind closed doors (which kinda negates the entire reason DADT is being repealed, right?)
Creating a policy for anything like this is not easy. It has to appease all sides, since now its venturing into the realm of the 1st Amendment. Granted, when you join the military, you toss your freedom of choice out the window, and just follow the policies. But, it's not really the actual service members that would cause the problem, it's the civilians. If DADT is repealed, and then a new policy comes out that doesn't allow relationships, the gay rights groups would have a field day claiming the policy was created in order to limit the homosexuals, since there was no policy in place before. So, any officials (whether military or civilian) who have a hand in this policy can either kiss their career goodbye (which I doubt any of them would be willing to give up right now), or not create a policy, and be questioned by heterosexuals.
As it stands right now, no policy is needed, since no one (not just homosexuals) has the right to ask sexuality, or even talk about it. Keep the status quo and make it easier and fairer on everyone.
.
id think two guys going at it in there bunks would be handled by the roomates personally lol.
but if the rule is no heterosexuals can be together in the same bunk or sleep together, then the same exact rule for gay couples wouldn't be discriminatory, it would be equal.
there is no rule currently because currently they act like days in the millitary don't exist. you change the rule to let them in, you change the rule abouc couples to include gays. you don' t make a seperate rule you just add them in. instead of male/female couples may not shower together in the same shower, you say male/female and male/male couples may not shower together in the same shower. i dont think it needs to be that difficult. so you say that gays will be allowed in the millitary and that they will follow the exact same rules as heterosexual couples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:id think two guys going at it in there bunks would be handled by the roomates personally lol.
I hope so too.
The problem with your plan to add gays to the rules is great, the only issue is that there are no such rules, as I said. The cohabitation rule covers it all by simply not allowing mixed gender barracks. No males can live in the female barracks, and vice versa. How can that possibly apply to homosexuals? So, like I said, NEW rules would have to be created in order to place the same restrictions on homosexuals, ALL of which would be discriminatory in the public eye.
The DADT policy is fine with people who are actually in the military. i don't know of one person who has put up a big fight to have it rescinded. It's the public that wants it removed. Why should they have any say? I don't see a reason for them to. If they don't like it, don't join. If I didn't like the way WalMart employees were being treated, I sure as hell am not going to go to bat for them. That's THEIR choice to work there, I didn't force them to do it, so why is the public getting all upset about something that doesn't even affect them?
.
