Gays in the Military

[olevetonahill]

While I dont really have a prob with it, I do however have a prob with Liberal federal Judges telling the Military what they can and cant do .

The Military is NOT a democracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_military

[Chuck Bao]

TACOMA, Wash. – A federal judge ruled Friday that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible in the latest legal setback to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton came in a closely watched case as a tense debate has been playing out over the policy. Senate Republicans blocked an effort to lift the ban this week, but Leighton is now the second federal judge this month to deem the policy unconstitutional.

With all due respect Olevet (and you do deserve a great deal of gratitude from all of us), if she wants to serve her country and a liberal federal judge is the only one who can put her back in uniform, I am all for it.

I don't think the liberal federal judge is dictating foreign policy or military strategy or troop deployment. And, I don't really think allowing openly gays to serve will weaken our armed forces.

I haven't seen any evidence yet to suggest that gays are any less brave or dedicated or professional than their straight fellow service men and women. If I am wrong then I would like someone to provide the evidence.

Unfortunately, this issue seems to have become a political battlefield. Politicians in Washington disgust me and some of them are using this issue and the service of the many Americans from all states, stars and stripes as a political weapon.

I never served in the military and I have a profound respect for those who do. Still, this just doesn't seem right to me.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It's a lost cause Olevet. there's no turning back.

[Sooner5030]

As a current commander I can say that if you are gay you can already serve in the military. What you can't do is where a f'king tab on your shoulder displaying what kinda of sex you like.

I don't come to work everyday reminding my Soldiers that wifey and i shared pillows last night. Why should I have to listen to someone tell me who they shared pillows with the night before?

I don't care and no one wants to hear about it. All we are doing is creating another paperwork hurdle that makes it harder to chapter folks.

Now every bubba that can't make weigh in or fails a drug test will have to go to another board to ensure that we are not chaptering them for their pillow sharing preference.

[yermom]

they don't know you banged your wife, but you don't have to lie about having a wife, do you?

[Okla-homey]

they don't know you banged your wife, but you don't have to lie about having a wife, do you?

neither would you have to lie about your man-wife. The point is, under current policy, no one can ask about your seckshual preference.

[olevetonahill]

Peeps the Gays in the Military to me is a moot point. IDGAS
My point of contention is the simple fact that a Judge can Dictate Military policy.
Like I said the Military aint a DEMOCRACY. a civilian has RIGHTS a Service Member has the UCMC.

Lets not get this off on the Gays , Yea or nay. Lets please discuss the The civilian judicial point ok ?;)

[OUthunder]

This issue is so ghey. If a person wants to serve, let em serve. But don't expect me to care or want to know that you're special or not because you like bumpin uglies with someone that is of the same sex as you are.

Politicians and judges need to let this go and let the men and women serve and do what they signed up to do.

[Sooner5030]

I am not aware of any changes in current chapter proceedings based on the court decision.

Most of the time chapters are agreed to by both the Soldier and the command as the most expedient way to have the Soldier exit his/her military service before their contract expires. Either for the benifit of the Soldier or the US Army.

[SteelCitySooner]

I just read the article. I actually knew this woman in my Air Force days and served with her in an Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. My minimal recollection of her was a good and caring nurse...and a nice lady.. Had no clue she was a lesbo.

Like many, I could care less about gay's serving with me. Like 5030 said, gays are already allowed to serve, just don't talk about it, and you won't be asked. I do have a problem with a liberal judge dictating us military policy...A policy which is set by congress and subject to UCMJ. Although constitutional rights are the framework of UCMJ, the inherent mission of the military requires modified freedoms that doesn't apply the rest of the citizens. IE, no pr0n or alcohol when you get deployed to Iraq (damnit!)..

Like I said, I got no probs with gays serving, and could care less if congress lifts don't ask don't tell.. I just don't want a lib judge from california dictating..

[olevetonahill]

I just read the article. I actually knew this woman in my Air Force days and served with her in an Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. My minimal recollection of her was a good and caring nurse...and a nice lady.. Had no clue she was a lesbo.

Like many, I could care less about gay's serving with me. Like 5030 said, gays are already allowed to serve, just don't talk about it, and you won't be asked. I do have a problem with a liberal judge dictating us military policy...A policy which is set by congress and subject to UCMJ. Although constitutional rights are the framework of UCMJ, the inherent mission of the military requires modified freedoms that doesn't apply the rest of the citizens. IE, no pr0n or alcohol when you get deployed to Iraq (damnit!)..

Like I said, I got no probs with gays serving, and could care less if congress lifts don't ask don't tell.. I just don't want a lib judge from california dictating..

This is My issue with the whole mess.
A dayum Judge that sits in his flowing black robes and may have never served , aint got a Place to be telling the Military what they can and cant do .

[yermom]

why does it matter if they are a lib and from California?

i don't get why you think the military exists in a vacuum independent of US laws. "don't ask, don't tell" came from Clinton in the first place. how else should that law get changed?

[yermom]

neither would you have to lie about your man-wife. The point is, under current policy, no one can ask about your seckshual preference.

you still have to hide it. you guys make it out like telling people that you are gay involves some description of having sex. if someone has to hide an entire relationship, it's lying. they have to lie about going on dates, whatever. imagine if you had to do every public or official thing without your wife.

it comes down to not viewing gay partners equally as straight ones. you may not respect gays' rights, but don't act like they don't have to lie to serve. that law is still very discriminatory.

[olevetonahill]

why does it matter if they are a lib and from California?

It dont, I just thru that in there:P

i don't get why you think the military exists in a vacuum independent of US laws. "don't ask, don't tell" came from Clinton in the first place. how else should that law get changed?

Unless you've been in the service , I dont think I can adequately explane it, Oh and Clinton was the Commander in Chief at the time


you still have to hide it. you guys make it out like telling people that you are gay involves some description of having sex. if someone has to hide an entire relationship, it's lying. they have to lie about going on dates, whatever. imagine if you had to do every public or official thing without your wife.

it comes down to not viewing gay partners equally as straight ones. you may not respect gays' rights, but don't act like they don't have to lie to serve. that law is still very discriminatory.

Like I said I dont have a Prob with it , Its the Judiciary trying to get involved that irks me.

[Frozen Sooner]

The original idea was that the military was supposed to answer to civilian authority. Just sayin'.

The decision itself was poorly reasoned and will likely be overturned on appeal. Right result, wrong arguments.

[yermom]

Like I said I dont have a Prob with it , Its the Judiciary trying to get involved that irks me.


i think they are working toward getting DADT in front of the SCOTUS

[olevetonahill]

i think they are working toward getting DADT in front of the SCOTUS

For some reason I dont have a prob with the SC deciding this. Its the fact that some Basically unknown (to the majority of the country) judge can try to dictate policy to the Military . Whether that policy is right or wrong is not my issue here.

[olevetonahill]

Also remember I grew up in the Draft age, You dayum sure dint have all yer civil rights then . ;)

[Okla-homey]

you still have to hide it. you guys make it out like telling people that you are gay involves some description of having sex. if someone has to hide an entire relationship, it's lying. they have to lie about going on dates, whatever. imagine if you had to do every public or official thing without your wife.

it comes down to not viewing gay partners equally as straight ones. you may not respect gays' rights, but don't act like they don't have to lie to serve. that law is still very discriminatory.

It's not a lie to avoid discussions of your romantic life. I just don't see the harm in requiring homosexuals to keep mum about their sexual preference as a condition of service. Military service is not a right, it's a privilege. And no one is forced to serve against his or her will. As such, it just seems rather silly for a homosexual who knew the rules when he or she entered our all-volunteer service, to complain when shown the door because he or she chose to advise his command of his orientation.

Here's the thing. A homosexual can serve in the military, even one who is "out," as long as he or she keeps that part of his or her life off base. There are lots of things G.I's aren't allowed that aren't problems for civilians. Remember, G.I.'s can still get in serious trouble for committing adultery, an act not prosecuted anywhere else.

[Harry Beanbag]

The military isn't a social or intellectual experiment. If you didn't serve, your opinion on how it should operate, regarding buttsecks or most other matters, is pretty much invalid and/or not important enough to worry about. JMO of course.

[Chuck Bao]

All interesting points here.

I was just wondering if personal correspondence of military personnel serving in a war zone is still sometimes screened. And if it is, would letters or emails to a boyfriend or girlfriend be considered as "telling"?

[olevetonahill]

All interesting points here.

I was just wondering if personal correspondence of military personnel serving in a war zone is still sometimes screened. And if it is, would letters or emails to a boyfriend or girlfriend be considered as "telling"?

Chuck as far as i know There has been no censorship of The Mail since WW2;)

[afs]

All interesting points here.

I was just wondering if personal correspondence of military personnel serving in a war zone is still sometimes screened. And if it is, would letters or emails to a boyfriend or girlfriend be considered as "telling"?

Correspondence in terms of phone calls and email using official government systems is screened for operation security purposes. However if criminal/illegal activity is revealed through those means then the info can be passed off to the proper authorities.

From my understanding that would be considered a form of telling, b/c when you pick up the phone or log onto the computer you consent to monitoring of your activity(there are stickers and pop-up windows). However, knowing some of the guys who do this work - it's probably going to be overlooked, as it's pretty far down on the list of what they care about and not really worth the effort.

[Chuck Bao]

Correspondence in terms of phone calls and email using official government systems is screened for operation security purposes. However if criminal/illegal activity is revealed through those means then the info can be passed off to the proper authorities.

From my understanding that would be considered a form of telling, b/c when you pick up the phone or log onto the computer you consent to monitoring of your activity(there are stickers and pop-up windows). However, knowing some of the guys who do this work - it's probably going to be overlooked, as it's pretty far down on the list of what they care about and not really worth the effort.

Thank you for answering my question, afs. Spek.

I very much like your comment that it is not really worth the effort. That is a huge step forward in my opinion. I remember 20+ years ago when there was a continuing "gay risks scare" stemming from the Cold War era and that whole queer, turncoat British intelligence issue. The thinking back then was that any gay senior military/intelligence leaders were wide open for potential blackmail and therefore presented a major security threat.

Maybe they still do. But maybe that is no less of a risk than straight senior officers wearing a vagina hat in Manila or Bangkok.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Here's the thing. A homosexual can serve in the military, even one who is "out," as long as he or she keeps that part of his or her life off base. There are lots of things G.I's aren't allowed that aren't problems for civilians. Remember, G.I.'s can still get in serious trouble for committing adultery, an act not prosecuted anywhere else.

Then why didn't they dismiss her for committing adultery? Why was her sexual orientation the reason for her dismissal? Shouldn't dismissal be based on inappropriate behavior rather than how one feels about something? I raise that question not knowing the extent to which rules against adultery are enforced in heterosexual cases. Whether she went muff diving or gave bj's should be irrelevant.


In pointed cross-examination, Justice Department lawyer Peter Phipps noted Monday that Witt had engaged in an adulterous relationship with a married civilian woman in 2003. The woman, now divorced, is still Witt's partner, but the Air Force argues that Witt's disregard for policy in committing adultery set a bad example for others in the unit and justifies her dismissal.

[afs]

Honestly I see this being a non-issue w/i the next 5 years. The nature of the military has it 5-10 years behind normal societal changes. As senior leaders retire and new commanders/decision makers who grew up with more liberal upbringings are put in place, you slowly start seeing cultural changes.

The bigger issue we'll face is not the sexual harassment/living condition concerns with seem petty and ignorant, but how do you deal with same-sex partners in terms of health-care and other dependent provisions? if a same-sex couple is legally married in say, Oklahoma, and military provides them the same benefits as different-sex couples then is the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages. So does this force the rest of the Union to follow suit and take the institution of marriage out of state control?

[yermom]

yeah, that's kinda where i'd assume it's going as well

[Sooner5030]

The answer is for the gubment to get out of the marriage business. That and to stop the wasteful wars on drugs, poverty and terrorism. FREEDOM!!

ok....i let out my daily libertarian rant.

[Chuck Bao]

Honestly I see this being a non-issue w/i the next 5 years. The nature of the military has it 5-10 years behind normal societal changes. As senior leaders retire and new commanders/decision makers who grew up with more liberal upbringings are put in place, you slowly start seeing cultural changes.

The bigger issue we'll face is not the sexual harassment/living condition concerns with seem petty and ignorant, but how do you deal with same-sex partners in terms of health-care and other dependent provisions? if a same-sex couple is legally married in say, Oklahoma, and military provides them the same benefits as different-sex couples then is the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages. So does this force the rest of the Union to follow suit and take the institution of marriage out of state control?

Another very good post. Spek again.

I think that this is exactly why conservatives are fighting the repeal of the DADT policy tooth and nail and making it an election issue, which is forcing moderates in conservative states to follow suit.

Another big test is the state department and US embassies abroad that currently won't recognize gay marriages abroad between an American and a foreign national. Of course, immigration is a whole other can of worms with some very serious political damage when spun the wrong way, even in this more liberal administration.

I generally agree with the state rights advocates, but I don't see how this issue can be settled without the federal government or maybe even a liberal judge in California stepping in and then eventually going to the Supreme Court.

I sincerely hope that you are right, afs, in that this becomes a non-issue within the next 5 years.

[Okla-homey]

FWIW, truthfully, there are probably ten lesbians serving for every gay man. Think about it.

At least that's what I observed before I retired in '05.

[misplaced_sooner]

AD Air Force here.

At home station, openly serving gays isn't really much of an issue.

However, "downrange" whether that is Afg, Iraq or some other ****hole sandbox, most of the living arrangements are communal. I know there are gays serving currently. But, how do you think an OPENLY gay man would be treated when he walks into a bathroom/shower with 20 other men? I doubt there will be a welcoming committee. Combine that with living with at least one, if not 10 other men in a tent, dorm, etc, some guys would have serious issues dressing/changing and sleeping in a 10 x 10 room or tent with an openly gay man.

How do you fix those problems? Give the gays their own tent/dorm/showers? Then, what the hispanics will want their own? The black folks? The white people? Where will it end?

[yermom]

well, i'm sure women need their own tents or whatever.

does the military function better because dudes can see each other changing?

how do schools handle this?

i've lived with a gay dude, shared a tent, hotel room, etc... it wasn't really an issue, except the bastard snores.

[Harry Beanbag]

i've lived with a gay dude, shared a tent, hotel room, etc... it wasn't really an issue, except the bastard snores.


So have I, but I doubt your gay dude outranked you and was your boss. Oh, he may have held grudges and had the emotions of a woman like most of them do, but not really the same scenario.

Some of you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. Gay guys seeing straight dudes junk in the shower is not the major issue here.

[Mjcpr]

i've lived with a gay dude, shared a tent, hotel room, etc... it wasn't really an issue, except the bastard snores.

Doleo snores?

[Scott D]

Doleo snores?

this

[Crucifax Autumn]

The good thing is those tents and showers and **** will be MUCH better decorated.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The military isn't a social or intellectual experiment. If you didn't serve, your opinion on how it should operate, regarding buttsecks or most other matters, is pretty much invalid and/or not important enough to worry about. JMO of course.



So have I, but I doubt your gay dude outranked you and was your boss. Oh, he may have held grudges and had the emotions of a woman like most of them do, but not really the same scenario.

Some of you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. Gay guys seeing straight dudes junk in the shower is not the major issue here.

There may very well be compelling reasons to limit constitutional rights in military settings. But those in the private sector, who create the wealth necessary for the military to exist, and who see their sons, daughters, and other loved ones serve certainly deserve to hear the arguments and should have a say in policies concerning who can serve and who can't and under what constitutional limitations.

Harry, rather than saying "your opinion is invalid" can you explain why you believe it is necessary for gay people to hide the fact that they are gay? To be clear, I am asking about knowledge of their sexual orientation, not sexual behavior.

[misplaced_sooner]

i've lived with a gay dude, shared a tent, hotel room, etc... it wasn't really an issue, except the bastard snores.

Did you shower with him?

[Harry Beanbag]

There may very well be compelling reasons to limit constitutional rights in military settings. But those in the private sector, who create the wealth necessary for the military to exist, and who see their sons, daughters, and other loved ones serve certainly deserve to hear the arguments and should have a say in policies concerning who can serve and who can't and under what constitutional limitations.

:rolleyes: I'm not sure I understand what Constitutional limitations are in regards to this matter. Nor do I understand what people creating wealth in the private sector have to do with it either. I thought only poor people served?






Harry, rather than saying "your opinion is invalid" can you explain why you believe it is necessary for gay people to hide the fact that they are gay? To be clear, I am asking about knowledge of their sexual orientation, not sexual behavior.

What I said has little to do with the rest of your question. If you have to ask for some arbitrary clarification that doesn't really have any meaning in real life, then you have proved my point. Your opinion is invalid.

My belief is that I don't give a **** if you like cocks in your mouth or not. Don't make it an issue and it shouldn't be an issue. My personal experience is that some gay dudes cannot keep their emotions out of work. And by some I mean the only one that I flat out knew was gay.

If you need any further explanation than you have proved my point yet again.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Man, you think the sexual harrassment cases the JAG Corp has to deal with now are burdensome with the full integration of the chickipoos? Just wait and see what you get if you take the restrictor plates off of all things gay.

We all know that sex or sexual orientation do not preclude in any way a soldier/sailor serving with distinction. Yes, even we misogynist arseholes get it.

However, my problem with it is simply one of efficiency and logistics. Inclusion of variables complicates matters.

Thank God I've never been in battle, and I'm guessing a response might be that in battle there are no complications because everyone is fighting for their lives and those of their team.

But what about getting to the battle... facilities, administration... even logistics? They all take an efficiency hit, IMO.

And to me that has a chance to impede mobility. And it seems to me battles are all about mobility... your ability to put more guns on their targets faster than they can get guns on yours.

So, FWIW, ladies and gents, gay and straight, please continue to serve. But regardless of how ignorant my take may be, I think keeping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in place is the more prudent path.

[afs]

Man, you think the sexual harrassment cases the JAG Corp has to deal with now are burdensome with the full integration of the chickipoos? Just wait and see what you get if you take the restrictor plates off of all things gay.

We all know that sex or sexual orientation do not preclude in any way a soldier/sailor serving with distinction. Yes, even we misogynist arseholes get it.

However, my problem with it is simply one of efficiency and logistics. Inclusion of variables complicates matters.

Thank God I've never been in battle, and I'm guessing a response might be that in battle there are no complications because everyone is fighting for their lives and those of their team.

But what about getting to the battle... facilities, administration... even logistics? They all take an efficiency hit, IMO.

And to me that has a chance to impede mobility. And it seems to me battles are all about mobility... your ability to put more guns on their targets faster than they can get guns on yours.

So, FWIW, ladies and gents, gay and straight, please continue to serve. But regardless of how ignorant my take may be, I think keeping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in place is the more prudent path.
:confused:

[yermom]

Doleo snores?

yes.

[yermom]

So have I, but I doubt your gay dude outranked you and was your boss. Oh, he may have held grudges and had the emotions of a woman like most of them do, but not really the same scenario.

Some of you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. Gay guys seeing straight dudes junk in the shower is not the major issue here.

this doesn't keep women out of the military...

[JohnnyMack]

Your opinion is invalid.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Your_argument_is_invalid.jpg

[SanJoaquinSooner]

:rolleyes: I'm not sure I understand what Constitutional limitations are in regards to this matter. Nor do I understand what people creating wealth in the private sector have to do with it either. I thought only poor people served?

1. Speech and Equal Protection. Homey made the point that G.I.s don't necessarily have the same freedoms as civilians.

2. The private sector creates the wealth to pay for gov't functions, including the military. People with modest incomes work in the private sector, so they contribute too. Citizens have a say in policy matters because they can vote for representatives who make laws and appoint regulators, and otherwise affect military policy.







What I said has little to do with the rest of your question. If you have to ask for some arbitrary clarification that doesn't really have any meaning in real life, then you have proved my point. Your opinion is invalid.

My belief is that I don't give a **** if you like cocks in your mouth or not. Don't make it an issue and it shouldn't be an issue. My personal experience is that some gay dudes cannot keep their emotions out of work. And by some I mean the only one that I flat out knew was gay.

If you need any further explanation than you have proved my point yet again.

1. Harry, Harry, Harry. Validity of an argument is independent of the characteristics of the person making the argument. And of course it has meaning in real life if a real live nurse gets kicked out for being a lesbian.

2. So you knew some gay guy who wasn't a good fit for the service. This should be the basis of policy concerning who and who can't serve? Harry, I once knew a tenured professor who fell in love with every 19-year-old coed he ever taught. He got his a$$ fired, in spite of tenure, for sexual harassment. But it would be redickulous to say "Heterosexual males shouldn't be permitted to teach females because they can't control their hard-ons."

[SteelCitySooner]

I have seen the most stupidest arguments on this thread..

[Crucifax Autumn]

If they ever threaten to toss you out just point 'em to a certain famous thread...

[SteelCitySooner]

I honestly could care less. But comparing this issue to women in the military? Are you serious?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yeah. Everyone knows this is more like Jews in the military.

[SteelCitySooner]

nah dude it's more like Caribbeans'. Those peeps freak me the **** out..

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yeah, that Billy Ocean always scared the **** outta me.

[olevetonahill]

I have seen the most stupidest arguments on this thread..

Has Limptard been arguing?

Hell I wanted to discuss the Civilian Judiciary Trying to dictate Military policy :rolleyes:

[SteelCitySooner]

ok seriously, I could care less. But I do see it as a problem for some. Peeps that get deployed and hafta shower and bunk together.. I really don't wanna know if the dude sleeping next to me is gay.. Or the guys I gotta shower with is gay. Or the guy that reports to me is gay. Or the guy I report to gay. I don[t care if they are.. I just prefer not to know.

A lot of these people here seem to be proponents of lifting the DADT thing, but never actually served or served in a deployed environment. The arguments and comparisons aren't even in the ballpark..

[Crucifax Autumn]

No one wants to hear about dicktaste.

[SteelCitySooner]

Exactly! Cru I been trying to tell you that for years. jeez, stop it already...

[Crucifax Autumn]

To be fair I've never seen tastebuds on an eyeball.

[SteelCitySooner]

you would def know..

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm a board certified expert.

[olevetonahill]

ok seriously, I could care less. But I do see it as a problem for some. Peeps that get deployed and hafta shower and bunk together.. I really don't wanna know if the dude sleeping next to me is gay.. Or the guys I gotta shower with is gay. Or the guy that reports to me is gay. Or the guy I report to gay. I don[t care if they are.. I just prefer not to know.

A lot of these people here seem to be proponents of lifting the DADT thing, but never actually served or served in a deployed environment. The arguments and comparisons aren't even in the ballpark..

I agree Bro . But I started this thread in the hopes of dicussing the Judge trying to force policy . I guess i shouldnt have used the title That i did.
I just dont see a Fed CIVILIAN judge , Telling the Entire Military Establishment how to perform .
Whats next Stress Cards? Oh wait :P

[SteelCitySooner]

Yeah I addressed that earlier. But the thread kinda morphed into a pro gay vs no gay in the military thing..

[Crucifax Autumn]

No homo.

[SteelCitySooner]

I love you too

[SteelCitySooner]

no homo

[Crucifax Autumn]

Keep saying things like that on a public board and they'll cancel your deployment.

[SteelCitySooner]

hah!

[SteelCitySooner]

but I said no homo?

Ahhhhh **** that. You know I wanna taste that sweet cru nector. Ugh. **** DADT!!

[Crucifax Autumn]

It's ambrosia.

[SteelCitySooner]

don't ask

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'll never tell.

[SteelCitySooner]

you rock!

[Crucifax Autumn]

http://www.alleba.com/blog/wp-content/photos/you_rock_you_rule.jpg

[SteelCitySooner]

My heart just skipped a beat

[SteelCitySooner]

after I vomited

[Chuck Bao]

Olevet, again with all due respect, I don't see the point that you continue to raise. The US military cannot have a separate law governing it outside the constitution. The US military is under civilian control with the commander-in-chief being the president of the US, who is ultimately responsible for all military action. This liberal judge is doing nothing other than upholding the constitution and ruling that those who want to serve their country can. He is not dictating military strategy or troop deployment. He is not dictating that gays get any special benefits, just that they are also allowed to serve their country.

[yermom]

I honestly could care less. But comparing this issue to women in the military? Are you serious?

Harry spoke of gays having emotions like women, which seems a bit like a generalization and a little sexist

not that i don't agree :D

but it would seem to imply that women wouldn't be fit to serve either.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yeah, if gays didn't act like women I'd go dick hunting tomorrow.

[SteelCitySooner]

Olevet, again with all due respect, I don't see the point that you continue to raise. The US military cannot have a separate law governing it outside the constitution. The US military is under civilian control with the commander-in-chief being the president of the US, who is ultimately responsible for all military action. This liberal judge is doing nothing other than upholding the constitution and ruling that those who want to serve their country can. He is not dictating military strategy or troop deployment. He is not dictating that gays get any special benefits, just that they are also allowed to serve their country.

Chuck.. Then explain to me why I can't see porn when I go to Iraq? Or can't have a beer after a long day? The rules aren't the same.. The military is a different animal,,,, you just cannot apply the same rules that we enjoy in our civilian life to the military..

[olevetonahill]

Chuck Iaint arguing one way or the other about the Gays. Hell most of us have already said we are fine with it.

But Yes Bro the Military is so far different than Civilian life it would make yer head swim .

The Military has its own UCMJ and thats as it should be. It is directly under the Commander in Chief.What Im saying Is that some Judge can try to dictate Protocols to the Military and thats a Bad thing , This is really not about Gays any more to me .

What happens when Some poor private crys to a Fed judge that he dint get enough sleep? or that He was made to Dig a ditch as Punishment ?
Will a Judge say thats Cruel and unusual ?

[SteelCitySooner]

Harry spoke of gays having emotions like women, which seems a bit like a generalization and a little sexist

not that i don't agree :D

but it would seem to imply that women wouldn't be fit to serve either.

But women have separate bunks and seperate showers.. And sexual discrimination is not tolerated. This is like comparing gays in the military to blacks serving in the miliatry.. It's not even apples to apples..

Again, I will say, I'm not against DADT or overturning it. Just being devils advocate from a guy that's living it..

[olevetonahill]

Harry spoke of gays having emotions like women, which seems a bit like a generalization and a little sexist

not that i don't agree :D

but it would seem to imply that women wouldn't be fit to serve either.

Im old Hard core sexist bro
I dont think women belong in the Combat portion of the Military, Can they Hump an 80 lb alice pack all dayum day? Then with very little food or rest Fight like a mad dog ?
I dont think so .

[Crucifax Autumn]

You must have dated a different type of woman than me! lol

[olevetonahill]

But women have separate bunks and seperate showers.. And sexual discrimination is not tolerated. This is like comparing gays in the military to blacks serving in the miliatry.. It's not even apples to apples..

Again, I will say, I'm not against DADT or overturning it. Just being devils advocate from a guy that's living it..

Im with ya Steel , My whole contention is a Civilian ****ing Judge needs to keep his/her meddling to his/her self. and or things that civilians cry about .

[Crucifax Autumn]

Does anyone know if the judge served? Just suddenly curious.

[olevetonahill]

Does anyone know if the judge served? Just suddenly curious.

Niot sure Bro , There are 2 different Judges here
The One is telling the Military that the DADT has to be overturned and another is Telling the Military that they HAVE to give this Nurse her job back .
Regardless of the right or wrong of that issue . She knew the rules when she went in . and agreed to abide by them .

[Chuck Bao]

Chuck.. Then explain to me why I can't see porn when I go to Iraq? Or can't have a beer after a long day? The rules aren't the same.. The military is a different animal,,,, you just cannot apply the same rules that we enjoy in our civilian life to the military..

Yeah sure, there is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the right of all Americans to porn or beer. In fact, any state in the union can outlaw either of them at anytime. The key thing is that the US Constitution protects a few of our individual rights and, I guess, this judge thinks that serving our country is one of them. There is really no need to go extrapolating from that.

Now, I think one of the legal brains posted earlier that this judge is on very shaky constitutional grounds and that ruling will be appealed and likely overturned.

[Harry Beanbag]

Harry spoke of gays having emotions like women, which seems a bit like a generalization and a little sexist

not that i don't agree :D

but it would seem to imply that women wouldn't be fit to serve either.


I didn't serve with women so I can't really comment. The only combat ships they were allowed on back then were carriers. But I think I can say with absolute certainty that things just don't run as smoothly and seamlessly as they did pre-women. Any man should be able to agree with that. ;)

[Chuck Bao]

Chuck Iaint arguing one way or the other about the Gays. Hell most of us have already said we are fine with it.

But Yes Bro the Military is so far different than Civilian life it would make yer head swim .

The Military has its own UCMJ and thats as it should be. It is directly under the Commander in Chief.What Im saying Is that some Judge can try to dictate Protocols to the Military and thats a Bad thing , This is really not about Gays any more to me .

What happens when Some poor private crys to a Fed judge that he dint get enough sleep? or that He was made to Dig a ditch as Punishment ?
Will a Judge say thats Cruel and unusual ?

Excuse me but I didn't realize that chain gangs working on highways or county inmates serving in non air-con tents in Arizona were already ruled unconstitutional.

There is no need to go to very extreme scenarios.

I think the real issue here is about whether gays are covered in the Constitution. I guess that the Supreme Court will have to make the ultimate decision.

[olevetonahill]

Excuse me but I didn't realize that chain gangs working on highways or county inmates serving in non air-con tents in Arizona were already ruled unconstitutional.

There is no need to go to very extreme scenarios.

I think the real issue here is about whether gays are covered in the Constitution. I guess that the Supreme Court will have to make the ultimate decision.

AS it should bro.
I guess that Unless a person has served then they cant really grasp what Im trying to say. Not a slight intended to those who havnt served either.
Its the same thing I guess as You telling me How the Shunning of gays affects you . I can get an idea But I cant really know

[Sooner_Havok]

I don't know war, but I know chess. Reverse the Don't ask Don't tell policy and send in the Queens. They can do pretty much do anything.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Lets not get this off on the Gays , Yea or nay. Lets please discuss the The civilian judicial point ok ?;)

If it's a constitutional issue, then the federal courts are where it's going to land, and if warranted, will work its way up to the Supreme Court. The DADT law was passed by congress, so a test on its constitutionality properly lies in the federal court system.

If I read your link correctly, the judge initially (in 2006) ruled in support of DADT in this lesbian nurse case, but the court of appeals rejected his ruling saying that the gov't "must prove that their firings further military goals."

Judge Leighton is a Bush appointee and was educated at a private Christian university as an undergrad.

"Leighton determined after a six-day trial that Witt's discharge advanced no legitimate military interest. To the contrary, her dismissal hurt morale in her unit and weakened the squadron's ability to carry out its mission, he ruled."

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Also remember I grew up in the Draft age, You dayum sure dint have all yer civil rights then . ;)

And an interesting distinction with today's events. Back then, people were trying to avoid service by claiming to be gay whereas today they have to hide their gayness because they want to serve our country. Of course claiming to be gay was not the only tactic to avoid service: there were losing too much weight, taking too much LSD, and growing a crop of anal cysts, just to name a few.