G
- Status
C
Chaplain777
Guest
Well that seems to be a good question. The reason, because the posted link says that an injunction has been issued for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This policy prohibited the military from asking questions about sexual orientation. So, does this mean that the military may now ask? If so, will they now find another reason (physical condition, or mental apptitude, etc.) to not accept the recruit based on the answer?
D
DOShea
Guest
She is a District Judge and has no authority outside of her federal district to order anyone to do anything. The most she can do is issue one that applies in the First district. But there is a larger hole in her head than that issue.
Her ruling (finding) is that it violates a First Amendment free speech guarantee. Such a ruling, if it prevails, would call into question every other military policy that equally violates First Amendment guarantees, such as having the right to say something disrespectful to a military superior. It also presumes to establish military service as “a right” which it has never been viewed as by federal courts in other cases, such as injured veterans wanting to stay on active duty when a medical board of review says no.
The other problem with it is it presumes a necessity for homosexuals to reveal their sexual distinction to someone, and that without it, service is impossible. Other federal courts have heard challenges to this concept and held DADT to be perfectly sound and reasonable. Those courts did not presume to tell the military what is or is not good for it; they left that to those who are wearing uniforms and their civilian leadership. So this judge is the single minnow swimming upstream when all the rest thus far swim the other way.
There are all kinds of legal wormholes in this decision, and I do not expect it to prevail if challenged.
What this judge does not get to rewrite is the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the law that covers those in the military. Currently, that law makes participating in homosexual acts a crime (Article 125 - Sodomy). So under this judge’s ruling, gays could serve openly and the first time they committed a homosexual act they are facing charges. So what good did this ruling do, really, except to identify those individuals who will now be placed under a microscope while everyone around them waits to catch them doing something that will get them in trouble. That is why DADT was put in effect in the first place - to remove the “witch hunt” factor. Now, I guess, it will be back.
Her ruling (finding) is that it violates a First Amendment free speech guarantee. Such a ruling, if it prevails, would call into question every other military policy that equally violates First Amendment guarantees, such as having the right to say something disrespectful to a military superior. It also presumes to establish military service as “a right” which it has never been viewed as by federal courts in other cases, such as injured veterans wanting to stay on active duty when a medical board of review says no.
The other problem with it is it presumes a necessity for homosexuals to reveal their sexual distinction to someone, and that without it, service is impossible. Other federal courts have heard challenges to this concept and held DADT to be perfectly sound and reasonable. Those courts did not presume to tell the military what is or is not good for it; they left that to those who are wearing uniforms and their civilian leadership. So this judge is the single minnow swimming upstream when all the rest thus far swim the other way.
There are all kinds of legal wormholes in this decision, and I do not expect it to prevail if challenged.
What this judge does not get to rewrite is the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the law that covers those in the military. Currently, that law makes participating in homosexual acts a crime (Article 125 - Sodomy). So under this judge’s ruling, gays could serve openly and the first time they committed a homosexual act they are facing charges. So what good did this ruling do, really, except to identify those individuals who will now be placed under a microscope while everyone around them waits to catch them doing something that will get them in trouble. That is why DADT was put in effect in the first place - to remove the “witch hunt” factor. Now, I guess, it will be back.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
DADT didn’t remove the witch hunt factor; it just changed the rules of the hunt. Even if gay service members play by the rules that doesn’t mean everyone else will. A prime example of this is the case of Sergeant Jane Newsome. She played by the rules but was outed to her commanding officers by two local police officers who saw her marriage license while peeping through her windows. She was subsequently discharged from the military for the sole reason of her sexual orientation.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Most people on these boards know I support homosexuals serving in our military they always have and I never had a problem with them.
However this Sergeant is dumb she’s on active duty and hangs a marriage license up? How many people hang their marriage license up? I have two of them I never hung one up.
I also think there is more to this story that the public knows; I’ve known and still know many people in leadership positions that knows of their homosexual troops me included never went after anyone for being homosexual.
I never heard of witch hunts for homosexuals in over twenty years in the army and trust me we usually knew who they were; as long as they did the mission we didn’t care who they sleep with.
So why this commander went after this NCO I don’t know but it’s not the norm.
The only times I ever got involved in anyone’s sex life if the trooper was married having an affair or a or a single trooper having an affair with someone that’s married—all you can do is counsel them not to do it and quote regulations that you can get busted for it.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I know a few people who have their marriage licesnses framed and hanging on a wall. I don’t think it’s “dumb” to have a marriage license hanging in your private home and I doubt that she, like most people, would expect or plan for a scenario involving a couple of peeping toms oogling her belongings through her windows then go slithering to her commanders about what they saw.
I know a handful of current and former servicemen and women and their accounts seem to be consistent with yours…for the most part. From what I’ve been told; the policy is selectively enforced. Some commanders care; others don’t and it’s just luck of the drawl.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Same with me. I served with gays, never once had a problem with them, never once observed any man having a problem with them, and I never observed a witch hunt.
That’s not to say that there aren’t gay-obsessed commanders out there who have harrassed a gay serviceman or woman into a discharge or a court-martial, but those are the exceptions, not the rule by far.
Right!
If it was on the QT, no one cared; if it was flagrant and could have hurt morale, what you did was the right thing to do.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
No there is nothing wrong with hanging a marriage license up I’m saying it was dumb of her to hang it up she was on active duty have to be discreet.
I had a Staff Sergeant working for me she lived with her cousin we all knew it was her lover; when we had unit functions like an NCO Ball she didn’t bring her cousin to the Ball as a date usually another male NCO escorted her.
F
FOFEBA
Guest
I never had a problem with gays when I was in the military. They did their job just as anyone else did. Competence was more important than details of one’s personal life. The only use for DODT was for the occasional commander to harass someone, so I am in favor of its repeal and for there to be no restrictions based on sexual orientation. The same sexual harassment and conduct regulations should apply to all, and would be sufficient to deal with any inappropriate behavior.
I understand that a judge in Massachusetts has found the Defense of Marriage act unconstitutional as well, because it denies federal benefits to legally married gays in the state of MA. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like this might also have some bearing on military benefits for those who are located in MA.
I imagine that these court cases will continue popping up until they are resolved eventually in the US Supreme Court.
I understand that a judge in Massachusetts has found the Defense of Marriage act unconstitutional as well, because it denies federal benefits to legally married gays in the state of MA. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like this might also have some bearing on military benefits for those who are located in MA.
I imagine that these court cases will continue popping up until they are resolved eventually in the US Supreme Court.
F
FOFEBA
Guest
In California, I believe that the State Supreme Court did not treat gays as a protected class when it upheld prop 8. However, my understanding is that judge Walker in the Federal Appellate Court has elevated gays to a protected class in his ruling. I don’t know how much impact that has on how other judges view the issue.
Perhaps there is a lawyer on this forum who can enlighten us.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
She should have to be discreet in her own private residence??? I don’t think so.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
When you’re active duty military you are on duty until your ID card expires; than means 24/7 on Post/Base or off Post/Base.
She was not drafted she knew the regulations it was a dumb move on her part—why the police got involved with her why her Commander got involved we don’t know.
I agree with you I think it was wrong but this is the what the LSM [Lame Stream Media] is reporting it–like I said there has to be more to this story.
K
kenofken
Guest
There is always more to the story. One angle the anti-gay crowd who are hunting capable soldiers out of our military are actively undermining our national defense. Many of those discharged had rare and critical skills - ie medical and linguistics. So we’re getting rid of these folks AFTER investing what, maybe a quarter million in training, based on nothing more than the fact that they’re gay, or somebody’s pretty sure they are. So we have communications intercepts in Farsi or Urdu piling up and waiting for translation, meaning that they’ll translate information about an ambush or bombing the day after the casualty reports come in. Meanwhile, to fill the gaps in recruitment, they’re issuing waivers to criminals and school drop outs and out of shape guys they never would have given a second look a few years ago. At best, this is animal level stupidity. At worst, to the extent the gay hunters know this policy hurts the military and pursue it anyway, it’s treason.
T
TMC
Guest
I support gay people serving openly in the military. I also think that the sergeant should have the right to display her marriage certificate. Both those things said, it seems ill-advised to do so, unless the goal is to initiate a conflict. If that was her goal, she succeeded. If it wasn’t her goal, she still shouldn’t be surprised.
On balance, I would rather that the advocacy groups slowed down on suits like this and let the legislature finishing repealing DADT. It looks like that will happen early next year, and it would be a better and less controversial way to address the issue. But I can understand that those directly affected are probably tired of waiting.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
She followed regulations to the letter. We know why the police got involved. They were looking for her wife, snooping around her house, and peeping in the windows. They contacted her at the military base and asked her to go home so they could ask her some questions regarding her wife’s wherabouts. She declined to leave the base early; citing the fact that she was on duty. Their response was to call her commanding officer and tell him that she’s a lesbian.
Initiate a conflict? She couldn’t have predicted or planned on the gestapo peeping through the windows of her house and calling her commanding officer.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Well, maybe that can be objectively demonstrated and maybe it can’t. So far, I haven’t seen it, though I would surely have thought the homosexual activists would have ponied up persuasive evidence of it if it was true.
Whatever the truth of it might be, I have a problem with the notion of the government officially endorsing what is, after all, a sexual perversion. Does anyone really believe the armed services will not be obliged, upon doing away with DADT, to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships in every way; socially, with housing, with advertising, etc? And does anyone seriously believe that will not give homosexual activists one more weapon of persuasion to change society entirely? “After all, if it’s okay with the army, why not in the schools?”
Finally, it may be observed that volunteers for the military are very often people of strongly religious backgrounds. Very frequently, there is family encouragement or at least endorsement of a military decision. How many strongly religious people are going to think it’s just fine for their son or daughter to serve in a flagrant homosexual atmosphere? My suspicion is that those who would be lost to the military for that reason would outnumber the number of homosexual experts who just couldn’t stand being in the service without being openly homosexual.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Your terminology implies that you are familiar with SIGINT, an endeavor I was involved in for a while when I first went into the AF. The intercept operators were very intelligent young men, and I always thought that some were more “sensitive souls” than the rest of us.
When it came to losing skills in languages like those, it does seem almost treasonable to throw them out for what they did on their own time in private.
So many armies already have gays serving openly, and for a number of years now - the Canadians, the Brits, most Continental armies. I haven’t ready about problems in any of them with gays.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
The Army isn’t in the morality business.
I’d say, “Let’s see how is it working out in those armies that have gays serving openly.” Your concerns are speculative, those armies have the real life facts and the experience with the situation. Not to dismiss your concerns, but I’d rather rely on what has happened than on what might happen.
T
TMC
Guest
Just to be clear, the first quote you attributed to me is not mine, its stanmaxkolbe.
But more substantively, maybe you are right. I don’t know the details of how she got ‘caught’, and maybe she reasonable expected that she would not. I shouldn’t be critical of her, either way. Again, I certainly support her right to serve, and I think its a shame we have a policy that requires people to sneak around and hide who they are. My point was that if you decide to directly challenge that policy, I don’t have a problem with that, but you know what will happen when you do. I don’t know if she was doing that or not, so I shouldn’t assume one way or the other.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
You don’t know?
If she was such an outstanding NCO why did her Commander kick her out? For good NCO’s most Commanders will just look the other way—so the police told the Commander the Commander could have said, “ok thank you for the info.” and done nothing.
Have thought that maybe her command was looking for an excuse to kick her out? Why isn’t the First Sergeant involved? A good Commander will not go to the latrine without checking with the First Sergeant first.
I seen it happen many times a bad soldier is late for formation; you write the soldier up. Good soldier late for formation; you look the other way. Maybe she was a pain in the neck and they wanted to get rid of her I don’t know?
Like I said there is more to this that what is being reported.
- Status