Judge orders injuction against DADT
Yeah, you’re going to hear a lot about this story during the next few days. If I didn’t know better, the slaves were freed today. And the hyperbole is flying;
[U.S. District Judge Virginia] Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week nonjury trial in federal court in Riverside. She said the Log Cabin Republicans “established at trial that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights.”
Which fundamental right is that Judge Phillips, the Clinton appointee? The right to put whatever you want in whoever you want? In which article can I find that?
She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment.
I’m no lawyer, but that seems specious on it’s face. I guess I’ll wait for our legal staff to review the decision in it’s entirety.
I can just hear the thunder of ballet-slippered feet as the gay community stampedes to line up at the recruiting stations. Can’t you? All of our retention problems have been solved.
Category: Military issues
Bah Humbug!
Yeah, I don’t think you should use “retention” and “gay community” in the same paragraph again…I’m just sayin’.
Well…I guess you can never have enough sensitivity training, right? (All sarcasm intended.)
I apologize to everybody who I have just offended. In advance.
She said the Log Cabin Republicans “established at trial that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights.”
==========
But, but, but… liberals and Hollywood and Meggie Mac all say that Republicans are homophobic!!!11ty! and the Party has a small tent!
On a serious note… on the one hand, it would seem that the Left would be upset that a Republican group got something done regarding DADT. On the other hand, could this be used as an “October surprise” by Democrats to turn social conservatives away from the GOP?
Well, shit!
Regs addressing fraternization – out the window!
Regs that establish rank – out the window!
Regs that deal with uniforms and proper hygiene – out the window!
Regs that deal with (physical or mental) fitness – out the window!
They are all fundamental rights.
Also, wasn’t DADT enacted as a compromise under the Clinton Administration? Wasn’t the original policy/law that homosexuals could not serve at all? So now that they have put an injunction on DADT, is the military now going back to its old policy and not allowing homosexuals to serve at all? Or did DADT completely replace the old policy and if DADT is eliminated, then there is simply no more policy on homosexuals at all?
One thing is for certain Mike, as much as nature abhores a vacume, the military abhores a lack of policy. 😉
I’m pretty sure that any repeal of DADT will result in the outright ban of homosexuals. I could be wrong.
Well, if this is to stand, then how can the military separate men and women in the communal showers. Or that line of porclain thrones? Who gets the top bunk guy or girl?
Months ago, someone commented, possibly here at TAH, that this is not a “foxhole problem”, as there are other things to concentrate on in a foxhole. This is a problem in the showers. If this stands, and some straight guy slaps the shit out of the fagboy who makes a pass at him in the shower, it cannot be a hate crime, just two guys fighting, eh?
What a can of worms opened here.
Good thing I have my service time 45 years behind me.
Hey MiM #6.
Isn’t the real issue service-members and their ‘fundamental rights’?
This case may open a very large can ‘o worms? Mind you I’m reading the news stories and not the decision, all that legal mumbo-jumbo gives me a pain. Still, when ‘fundamental rights’ and the military are used in the same quote…
Isn’t the real issue service-members and their ‘fundamental rights’?
==========
What ‘fundamental rights’? Isn’t the military all about temporarily taking away certain rights (ie freedom of speech, for one) while one serves the nation? That’s the whole idea of ‘sacrifice’ and why service members are so admired — at least by most people — for what they do.
Ironically, many who support ‘GLBT rights’ use the rationale of ‘what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of our business’. Well, that sounds all nicey nice, but two adults can consent to adultery in the privacy of their bedroom. I doubt people want to get rid of the military policy of throwing people out for adultery. Or, who knows, maybe they do… I dunno…
All I do know is that conservatives — most notably US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — warned after Lawrence v Texas that the GLBT movement would push forward demanding more and more. They denied it at the the time, but sure enough, less than 10 years later they are pushing to redefine marriage and repeal DADT. And their agenda has nothing to do with ‘fundamental rights’.
Hmmm, my link did not come through: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
First off, SCOTUS has already established that there is NO fundamental right to serve in the military.
Second, homosexuality is not a genetic condition. It is a life-style choice, and should not be allowed any more weight than any other lifestyle choice. If the military can ban the KKK or the American Nazi Party, or certain gang members, then it should be able to ban homosexuals under the same standard(s).
“First off, SCOTUS has already established that there is NO fundamental right to serve in the military.”
==========
Thing is, homosexuals already can serve in the military. They just are not allowed to serve openly.
It’s funny, I remember watching the movie PCU (with Jeremy Piven) and when they were walking through the main area where everyone is protesting for something, one of the groups was shouting “Gays in the military now!” I think that movie came out in 1994. Well, DADT allowed homosexuals in the military. BUT… that wasn’t enough. As always, they want more. They don’t just want to be able to serve, they want to be able to serve openly. And, really, they don’t just want to serve openly, they’re going to want more. And more. And…
This isn’t about any ‘fundamental right’ to serve in the military. Homosexuals are already allowed to serve. They want more.
Just like “gay marriage” isn’t about getting married, since homosexuals are already allowed to get married, just like everyone else. They want something more. They want marriage redefined. And after they get that, they’ll want more.
This is how the GLBT movement works.
As the resident gay-loving, DADT hating lawyer type, I have to say: this legal decision is not only bad law, but horrific politics no matter what side you are on.
Hopefully the Supremes will step in and slap this chick’s pee pee and tell her to hold up a bit.
Thanks TSO #14.
Am I extraordinarily full of shit, or does not the issue of ‘fundamental rights’ open a can of worms if accepted as precedence? Seems only peripherally to do directly with DADT I’m thinking.
MiM #10. There it is!
I signed away some ‘fundamental rights’ when I joined up. The list is rather long, but I did so gladly.
Thing is… is the line DADT (not extant when I joined) and/or where is it?
Michael:
I served alongside two gay men. They were professional, squared away, and I had no problems with their “choice” because they didn’t advertise it.
As you point out, there are plenty of homosexuals serving in the military, but this ain’t about them. It’s about leftists trying to force a “normalization” of a lifestyle choice upon the American public, whether the public wants it or not.
AW1, I had two lesbians working for me when I was in HC-1. I didn’t have a problem with that. My problem was that they were dirt bag Sailors. They were consistently late, their uniforms usually looked like shit and they were loathe to do their jobs as ATs. We also had a gay set of sisters at the same squadron. They were OK, as far as military bearing, doing their job, etc.
The ones that worked for me were quite openly gay and this was back in 1980-1983. The sisters weren’t so open about it, but everyone knew they were. Not a thing was ever done to any of them because of their sexual preference. The Chain of Command just turned a blind eye.
I think everyone is missing the trees for the forest here. Note the timing of this decision. We are what, three weeks away from the election? Pretty convenient, given the the left’s (notably Obama’s) loss of appeal in the polls. Just sayin’…
Never served with gay men, that I knew of but did serve with a woman that kept her chit tight. Rode patrol (no hanky panky in case you are wondering) on a regular basis, always had each others back in company, mess hall or Enlisted club and she could be fierce as hell.
“Don’t burn the US flag in front of me, don’t you even dream of bad mouthing our troops” was her motto. She had a zero tolerance for militant gays.
As for CODE Pink? She wanted Jody Evans butt on a platter, real bad…
I have a solution.
In the interests of moving society along, we should immediately halt all new enlistments, commissioning, warrants, and entrances into all services.
Then, we should admit only homosexuals, until such time as parity equal to their percentage in civilian society is met.
Once we are done with that, we should begin introducing the other entrants based solely on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, and sexual preference, again, with regards to their identified species percentage in society.
What we would see is a military that 1s 52% female, 81% from the cities and ‘burbs, mostly Californian and Texan, on average 36 years old, 73% white, 12% hispanic, 10% black, 4% asian. and 1% other, 4.1% ghey, lesbian or biseckshul, 13% foreign born, 1.1% illegal alien.
I’m sure the military would then function *just as well* as polite society.
As the resident gay-loving, DADT hating lawyer type
As evidenced by your bromance with all things Tom Brady. But seriously, this is a horrible decision which will likely be challenged (and overturned) by DOJ before the ink of her signature is dry.
Chuck,
If the Navy’s Diversity Command had their way, they’d probably be implementing your suggestions as fast as they could generate the oporders.
For anyone who hasn’t been paying attention, my Navy has regressed to the early 70’s with their own in-house affirmative-action programs, to the disgust of most of the fleet, and the detriment of morale and training resources.
The military must never be used as a petri dish for social engineering experiments. Our recruiters should have only one goal: To recruit the best and brightest our nation has to offer.
respects,
Might want to think about tar and feathering that judge. No good will come from this decision.
#12 AW1 Tim said, “Second, homosexuality is not a genetic condition. It is a life-style choice, and should not be allowed any more weight than any other lifestyle choice.”
Seriously?!?! So it’s nothing more than a CHOICE huh? I find that very peculiar. Have you ever known a gay person who was able to just make the choice to stop being gay, cause I certainly haven’t.
#25 Anonymous in Jax:
Would you prefer “end-line genetic anomaly”?
PintoNag- Could you please tell me what you mean by “end-line genetic anomaly”?? I think I have an idea of what you’re getting at, but I wanna hear it from the Nag’s mouth.
If homosexuality is genetic, it would be considered an anomaly that would result in the end of that particular genetic coding, since biologically, copulation is for reproduction only. In other words, if the genetic coding alters in such a manner that the organism cannot reproduce, the genetic coding comes “end-line.” That is strictly on the biological level, and because of complexity, I did not address the assisted reproductive techniques whereby homosexual parents may actually reproduce. While it is hotly debated in public circles, there are NO studies at this time that have isolated a genetic factor in homosexual individuals that account for their homosexuality.
Perhaps I should clarify why I asked that last question- I have never heard the term “end-line genetic anamoly” used to describe homosexuality. I wasn’t sure if this was an original term you have come up with or if it is one you have heard somewhere else. That leads me to the question of- why this term?? I have always been taught you don’t come up with a term without something to back it up…and if you have some research somewhere to back up the use of this term, I am quite interested to hear it…or read it, I should say.
I appreciate your answer, but I am not sure that I like the use of the word “anomaly” simply because of the connotation of the word. I recently worked on the research team of an Evolutionary Psychologist who posits that all so-called “abnormalities” are not really abnormalities at all….they are merely adaptations that serve specific purposes. As to what the specific purpose of each adaptation is…yeah, that’s anyone’s guess. But I guess what I really want to get at is the “end-line” part. While I totally understand that this could be considered an end to the genetic code of said individuals, what about the individuals who do have relationships in order to reproduce? I have a lesbian friend who has had sex with men only a handful of times in her life & she did so one of those times solely for the purpose of having a child. So even some homosexual individuals still feel the need to reproduce. Sorry for asking so many questions- it’s just something that I started asking questions about.
“End-line” is made-up short hand. “Stop-gene”, which is close in meaning, would have conveyed the wrong information. Unfortunately, in genetics, unless a particular identified disease process is being discussed, the terms can be maddeningly vague: anomaly, abnormality, disorder, disease, etc. “End-line” worked in our conversation for sake of brevity, but it is not a specific “genetic term.” I chose one of those vague terms that would convey the intended meaning as clearly as possible.
As to your question about homosexuals that reproduce, that one is up in the air. Since homosexuals ARE capable of reproducing, it is possible that some factor, as yet unidentified, is being passed along in the genetic material of the homosexual parent. Until a definite answer is found to the question of genetic factors in homosexuality, this question will not be able to be answered, either.
There are many studies listed on the internet concerning gentic research for homosexual factors. You can also pick almost any site devoted to genetic clinics and labs around the country and the world and see the latest research (if you like wading through medical research papers).
If it’s any consolation: a lot of very educated people have the same questions you do! : )
I have a lesbian friend who has had sex with men only a handful of times in her life & she did so one of those times solely for the purpose of having a child.
==========
Why did she have sex with the men, when she could just have in vitro fertilization for the purpose of having a child?
While it is hotly debated in public circles, there are NO studies at this time that have isolated a genetic factor in homosexual individuals that account for their homosexuality.
Of course not, because then they’d have to admit that the only reason homosexuality was taken off the APA’s list of psychological disorders back in the 1970s is because of pressure from GLBT groups, not because of any scientific finding to cause the change.
If it’s any consolation: a lot of very educated people have the same questions you do!
==========
Unfortunately, those questions will continue to go unanswered so long as homosexuality (and every other “sexual orientation”) is treated as a political football, instead of as a genetic issue to be researched.
Yes, absolutely, Homo- and Hetero- sexuality are absolutely choices.
The act of sex is a choice, unless you are a cat, or a pantleg when my dog is around.
We are human beings; for us, sex is a choice we make–whether or not to have it, and with whom. (Just ask the Mrs.)
If it were not an active choice, rape could not be a crime, as it would be an involuntary impulse.
We are supposedly higher thinking beings, is it impossible for teh gheys to accept responsibility for their choices? Is it so hard for Heterosexuals to accept that they, too, chose to attract to the person with the slots matching their tabs? When they hit puberty, they were turned on by the pheromones of the pubescent females. The gheys weren’t. It could be something as simple as a defect in the olfactory senses that causes it, but since gheys were not aroused by opposites, they may have assumed they were, by default, ghey, and as such began to associate arousal with other males.
It’s plausible, right?
Granted, *no* hard science exists to support this, but people buy into global warmening, too.
I disagree with it being a choice. While I CHOOSE whether or not to have sex with someone, I don’t CHOOSE who I am attracted to. I just simply follow what my hormones tell me!! I just happen to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. LOL
As for my lesbian friend- it was a male friend of hers and she asked him beforehand. I guess it was just much cheaper and more efficient than going the sperm donor route cause in this case she got the sperm for free.
Just some questions:
Serving in the Air Force, Airmen are subject to random drug piss tests (though the tests happen fairly often despite the “random” qualifier). Anyone actively serving in the Air Force above the rank of Senior Airman can be selected to observe the test, i.e. are forced to watch lots of people pee in cups. So here’s the question: If you knew the person who was going to watch you pee was an openly homosexual sergeant, what would you do?
How do you think the UCMJ rules regarding sodomy and cohabitation are going to be rewritten?
Will the military recognize gay marriage? How will the military’s decision affect homosexuals who are already married (since the rules regarding gay marriage vary between states)? Will there be a special case for the military or will the nation’s policy change to accommodate?
If DADT is removed, will military members be again required to reveal their sexual orientation?
If the military accepts homosexuals serving openly, does that extend to bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, cross dressers, etc. or just homosexuals?
Will the decision to permit homosexuals to serve openly be applied the same way throughout the military, or will it vary?
How big of a Charlie Foxtrot will forcing the military to institute a drastic policy change while there is no plan of implementation cause?
#10 “I doubt people want to get rid of the military policy of throwing people out for adultery.”
I missed this earlier. The UCMJ Changed those laws well over a decade ago, no one is thrown out ‘simpley’ for adultery anymore. The current language on adultry stipulates that any such infractions must be having a bad effect on unit readiness and/or morale, and there are administrative remedies to be applied before actually kicking someone out for it. In other words, if the actions are discovered and they don’t have a negative effect on unit opperations, nothing is said, the act its self is no longer illegal. This mirrors American society in general. There are only a very small number of states left where adultry is still against the law, fewer than 10 I think.
“In other words, if the actions are discovered and they don’t have a negative effect on unit opperations, nothing is said, the act its self is no longer illegal. This mirrors American society in general.” ========== Hmmm, I stand corrected. Though, I don’t think the “mirrors American society in general” is a good standard to have for the military. The whole idea of the military is to hold itself to a higher standard of discipline. On the other hand, I guess the “so long as there is not a negative effect on unit operations or morale, then do whatever you want” mentality is fine? And, if that’s the case, then why not allow fraternization (sex with fellow troops), drinking and every other activity that “mirrors American society in general”? You could even get the Left to support the military then, as they could get Planned Parenthood to give presentations where they teach the military to have sex the right way, pass out free condoms and put a Planned Parenthood abortion facility at every military base, domestic and foreign. With regards to adultery not being illegal, does that mean that only 10 States still consider it grounds for divorce? Wow. I’ve heard of ‘no-fault’ divorce, but I never really thought about what that meant. I guess it truly means that you can break your marriage vows to your spouse and not face any consequences except court fees. Back to the UCMJ re: adultery. On the one hand, I can see people being against enforcing morality in the military. On the other hand, without any standards of morality, you end up with people saying that the military will be forced to deal with the new lower standards of morality. In other words, someone will say “but if we do X, it will hurt morale and have a negative effect on unit operations” and the response will be “well, you’re going to have to get over that and find a way to NOT let it negatively effect unit operations, because we’re doing this whether you like it or not”. That’s basically the argument… Read more »
Nooooo, they haven’t isolated any genetic factors at all, only clustering of the same genetic pattern in gay men on three chromosomes – 7, 8, and 10.
The region on both chromosomes 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man received them from his father or mother. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the X.
True homosexuality is not a choice. Whether or not all who purport to be gay are truly so or have made the decision to live a homo- or bi-sexual, etc. lifestyle because of public acceptance is a different story.
“does that mean that only 10 States still consider it grounds for divorce?” Correct. “guess it truly means that you can break your marriage vows to your spouse and not face any consequences except court fees.” Not exactly. Many states now provide a legal means by which the jilted spouse may sue to recover damages from the new bf/gf for disruption of the jilted spouses life and standard of living. A distinction without an appreciable difference I suppose, you can be financially nailed either way. Personally I think it’s entirely too easy to get married in the first place, and too difficult to get divorced. I believe getting married should, by law, include a formal and binding exit strategy. Caveat emptor. “You could even get the Left to support the military then, as they could get Planned Parenthood to give presentations where they teach the military to have sex the right way, pass out free condoms….” I had to chuckle at this one. The military USED to do quite a bit of sex ed, and it USED to pass out free condoms. Remember? lol. “And, if that’s the case, then why not allow fraternization (sex with fellow troops), drinking and every other activity that “mirrors American society in general”” By and large, today’s military does. Unless the sex is between soldiers with vastly different rank, not much is said. And as a social group, military personnel are some of the heaviest drinkers I’ve ever encountered. “The whole idea of the military is to hold itself to a higher standard of discipline.” I agree to a point, but I didn’t really offer the ‘American society’ comment as a means of justifying the military’s actions. I offered the comment simply to illustrate the slow shift in our entire society’s mores and I suppose to point out that it’s not really very surprising. “without any standards of morality, you end up with people saying that the military will be forced to deal with the new lower standards of morality. In other words, someone will say “but if we do X, it will hurt… Read more »
#39 ROS:
Please get me the link for that study; I would like to read it. Thanks!
It’s in the March 2005 issue of Human Genetics and is by Brian Mustanski of UoI-Chi, along with scientists from the NIH.
Feel free to obtain a copy through here: http://www.springer.com/biomed/human+genetics?SGWID=0-126-0-0-0
“Not exactly. Many states now provide a legal means by which the jilted spouse may sue to recover damages from the new bf/gf for disruption of the jilted spouses life and standard of living.”
That’s the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard in a while.
Why the hell do spouses always blame the “other person” for indiscretions made by the person who took the vow in the first damn place??
Accountability is dead.
Why the hell do spouses always blame the “other person” for indiscretions made by the person who took the vow in the first damn place??
Accountability is dead.
==========
I have never understood this mentality either. And I see it mainly with women. They get more upset with the “other woman” than they do with their significant other. They seem to gloss over the fact that the other woman would not have even had the chance to cheat with him, had the man been faithful in the first place (ie, “sorry, I’m flattered, but I’m married/in a relationship”).
Think for a second ROS, if they know the person they are with is married, is not the illicit lover of a married person equally culpable in the dissolution of said marriage if they engage in activity that helps drive a wedge between a couple?
I’m pretty certain the burden of proof would need to be fairly high in order to receive a favorable judgment against the interloper.
Compare this to the responsibility borne by a getaway driver at the scene of a robbery. The getaway driver may have only signed up for the robbery, but if someone gets killed he’s damned sure gonna be charged with murder as well. The only difference between that and cheating spouses is we’re talking about a civil action rather than a criminal action.
Accountability isn’t dead, you can still sue the cheating spouse, this just increases the scope of accountability to include whom ever the cheating spouse is cheating with.
I look at it this way (like Mike, it would seem): A vow between two people is just between them. The only ones who can break it are those two people.
So, while the third party may be an accessory, that party is not accountable for the dissolution of that relationship.
“while the third party may be an accessory, that party is not accountable for the dissolution of that relationship.”
accessory
a :a person not actually or constructively present but contributing as an assistant or instigator to the commission of an offense —called also accessory before the fact
We hold an accessory accountable in all manner of circumstances, you’ll have to give a far better reason than you’ve given to convince me that we shouldn’t in the case of infidelity as well. Ether that or get the ‘state’ out of the marriage business all together, both in the licensing of it and in the form of any incentives.
Marriage may be a vow between two people, but until laws governing it are changed, it is also a legal contract. Breaking that vow is also breaking that legal contract.
ROS deserves credit for putting forward a thought-provoking scientific paper. Here is the direct link to the article:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3xcxgtb6x36aaap1/fulltext.html
For those here who are not inclined to read through a research paper, drop down to the section entitled “Discussion” for a synopsis of the findings.
Okay, my computer skills aren’t the best. The above link gets you close, but not to the article. Click on Author or Editor, enter Mustanski, then click on the second article entitled: “A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.”
THAT is the article.
“Marriage may be a vow between two people, but until laws governing it are changed, it is also a legal contract. Breaking that vow is also breaking that legal contract.”
==========
As far as the law goes, I agree with your reasoning. The “other woman” is an accessory to the affair and should legally be held accountable.
That said, my original opinion was based not on the legal aspects of it, but the emotional aspects of it. The part where a woman finds out that her man is cheating and instead of getting pissed off at her man, in a fit of rage she decides to go hunt down the woman for messing with her man. Again, this makes no rational sense to me, since the woman is not the primary person in the wrong, in my opinion, the married man is. Assuming a situation where a man is out in public (say at a bar) and gets hit on, all he has to do to prohibit an affair is to politely tell his admirer that he is married and is therefore not available for dating. Problem averted. Simple.
Is the woman in the wrong for hitting on a married man? No, not if she didn’t know he was married.
And I think that is the key to any legal recourse as well. I don’t think the “other woman” in an affair should be liable for being an accessory to the breakup of a marriage if the man never tells her that he is married. If she knowingly has an affair with a married man, then that’s another story.
But going back, I was mainly just focusing on the emotional aspect of it, where it seems people wrongly place more blame on the “other person” rather than on their scumbag of a significant other who allowed the affair to happen in the first place.