Federal Judge Strikes Down Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Velma]

Hopefully this will finally be the end of an awful policy.

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/09/09/f ... dont-tell/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... onal-.html

[Sophus]

About damn time!  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

[notself]

It appears that Obama is letting the courts keep his campaign promises for him.

[Martin TK]

Politically, allowing the courts to do this is a safe move for Obama, I don't blame him.  

It's about time, we have lost a LOT of good servicemen and women to a STUPID rule.  We've kicked heros out of the service, men with purple hearts and medals of honor, for this.  Thankfully, it's time to grow up as a nation and stop this foolishness.

 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

[Will]

(dancing, colorful banana men)

[Martin TK]

(dancing, colorful banana men)

I can't help it those darn little bananas just make me smile.

[Tank]

America continues its struggle to mature sexually. Bloody brilliant!

[Sophus]

So five dems voted against the repeal today (and the entire Defense Bill) but DADT may not be struck down by the Senate.

From the NY Times

In addition to the military policy, two laws restricting gay rights â€" the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the California ban on same-sex marriage â€" have been declared unconstitutional by federal judges in recent months.

The fact that these decisions have come from federal courts signals a shift for activists on gay legal issues. Until recently, the activists’ conventional wisdom held that gay rights cases should work their way through state courts, which were viewed as more accommodating than the federal judiciary.

But the three recent decisions on gay rights issues suggest that federal judges are increasingly willing to strike down what they see as antigay bias embodied in legislation, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at the University of California, Irvine.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a matter of time.  Thank god for young people.

[karadan]

It's a matter of time.  Thank god for young people.

Indeed. Definitely a reason to be cheerful.

[Intercourseman72]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dont-ask ... nate-vote/

And how many seats does our poll predict the republicans will gain?
But anyway, I don't see a reason to have a bunch of gay pride parades around the "right" to join the military. If there was a law that said atheists were not allow to reveal their lack of faith, I would have absolutely nothing against it. I am perfectly fine not having the "right" to volunteer for an organization (that up front says "you have no rights under our command") that regiments and controls every second of your life under their command, ordering you blow up these people, ordering you to recite and consequently memorizing Donald Rumsfeld's "Warrior's Creed", making you hurry up and wait and drive you mad with leadership incompetence, etc.

Besides, if the military wants and really wants you part of a unit, they will likely dismiss any evidence or require very strong evidence that indicates you violate DADT and keep you anyway. They own your ass and will do what ever they want with it. I don't know how many people have been barred from serving in the military over the years, but it probably wasn't close to enough to deplete the troop levels and I doubt the military would subject itself to such self-flagellation.

I am certainly not for a policy that says "because you are different in this certain, inconsequential way we will treat you differently." However, it's a little different to me when it's something like the military saying "we will treat you differently in that you can GTFO." Anytime the military does that, that is just a ok with me.

That's my opinion with regards to this issue, and Bill Hicks can take care of the rest.

[youtube:g3ep324r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E[/youtube:g3ep324r]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I see uniformed service as not just a duty but an honor.  I don't see that banning homosexuals from so doing simply because they are honest about themselves advances anything but the bigotry of some people.

Also, when one considers that the guiding precept of our military is "Duty, Honor, Country", how do you think it advances honor to demand that some members lie?

Finally, we've lost quite a few Arabic translators to this stupid policy, translators that are desperately needed both in Iraq and in the military intelligence community.  Apparently, who these people screw is more important than translating a potential email regarding a terrorist attack.

[Sophus]

This will be a test of Obama's will. He has the power to make an executive order to put the policy on hold, but all the experts act like he won't ever do it. Why? Most Americans want to see this policy go. He needs to do something to put the fire back in his original supporters. A move like that couldn't hurt.

[Intercourseman72]

This will be a test of Obama's will. He has the power to make an executive order to put the policy on hold, but all the experts act like he won't ever do it. Why? Most Americans want to see this policy go. He needs to do something to put the fire back in his original supporters. A move like that couldn't hurt.

Obama got grilled the first time he put in an executive order because he campaigned against such a thing saying it was used as an abuse of power by the Bush administration. Assuming that politics will still be politics around this issue, Obama has a lot to consider if he is to do anything so bold over a relatively trivial issue compared to things like health care, monetary policy, etc. If he makes an executive order, there is a lot that can hurt, really. I don't see him doing something like that.

I think a more effective measure would be for about 10k people serving in the military right now to protest this thing and announce they are homosexuals to their officers (at least 10k of the soldiers have got to be strongly against this thing). See what happens then. It's not that much less realistic than hoping for an executive order but almost guaranteed to see very strong results.

Yet again, I detest the military and see it as little more than the brutal, thuggish interests of the state, but I can't stand bigotry and the forceful enforcement of such a thing at the same time. I am pretty conflicted on this issue but still strongly oppose unequal rights under the law. I agree that DADT has to go, but I'd rather see something like the military gone before obscene policies of bigotry.

[notself]

This is why Obama is just a grade C president.  He could end DADT with the stroke of a pen just like Truman ended segregation of the Armed Forces with a stroke of the pen.

January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation.