Dadt Unconstitutional. ..

[BrianEtrius]

according to a California federal judge.

"U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a violation of due process and First Amendment rights. Instead of being necessary for military readiness, she said, the policy has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services"

Well, about time. Also, this puts pressure on Congress to now repeal the act. Election issue? You bet your butt it'll be a least a talking point now.

[Light]

It's about fucking time. However, I've heard arguments that this California federal judge superseded her authority. Apparently, her ability as a low federal judge to make a ruling regarding the United States military is in question. I say this should be taken up to the Supreme Court so that the matter can be settled once and for all. Or...Congress could just repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Whichever one's easier I guess.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/10/10 07:33 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: It's about fucking time. However, I've heard arguments that this California federal judge superseded her authority. Apparently, her ability as a low federal judge to make a ruling regarding the United States military is in question.

As an Article Three judge, she has for the most part, general jurisdiction to deal with Federal matters.

[Warforger]

I assumed the military was free from the Constitution during war time.......

[RWT]

Meh, it'll eventually get repealed. You have to remember, being a homosexual was a chargeable offense in the United States until the 1960's. And sodomy was a misdemeanor in 14 states until 2003. Change happens slowly.

At 9/10/10 07:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I assumed the military was free from the Constitution during war time.......

Because quartering soldiers in houses is the sort of thing that you do in peace-time...?

[SmilezRoyale]

I don't particularly care what policy the military adopts.

I am sympathetic to the idea that prohibiting [Not something punishable by law as a crime, per-say, but as something that could, at the absolute worst get you kicked out of the military] discussions about homosexuality as purely a way of preventing conflict between members of the military. Whose members may or may not be tolerant of homosexuality. However, in my opinion a better way of handling this policy would be to permit people to talk about their sexual orientation, but prohibit inquiries into it on the part of other military members WITHOUT PERMISSION.

But i can also see why some would consider such a policy as being anti-free speech.

However, i think their frustration with the policy is misplaced. If i ran a business, say for this case, private security. [And this example has nothing to do with a stateless society] And my employees came from a very wide range of areas, including those we would call cosmopolitan and those we might call traditionalist. I might find it safer, as a condition of employment, that discussions of religion, at least during work hours, are prohibited.

This policy is NOT the same as throwing people in jail for talking about homosexuality in general.

[aviewaskewed]

I see what you're saying Smilez, and I think it would be a better idea to perhaps repeal "dont ask, dont tell" and put in some sort of regulation to your effect, or even just kind of make it an unwritten rule or suggestion. The problem with "don't ask, don't tell" is that basically, it pretty clearly puts forward the idea that gayness is not something welcome in the military, and if people want to serve their country, why does who they choose to fuck have anything to do with how well they could accomplish that?

But then again, I just see anybody who can't take the road of "your lifestyle is not a choice I would make, it might even be something totally anathema to my belief system...but I understand it is your choice and your right, so we'll just not make that a factor in our dealings". Christ I know hardcore bible thumpers who are able to do that. The military is sort of like a gigantic work place, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if you want to be in that workplace, you should be able to find a way to work with people who have characteristics you may not agree with or like.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/10/10 10:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: This policy is NOT the same as throwing people in jail for talking about homosexuality in general.

This policy is just as bad, even though it has a thin layer of logic to it.

Here are a couple of equivalents that are much more visible:

If DADT involved minorities being OK so long as they bleached their skin and 'hid' among the whites.
If DADT involved religious restrictions and the Muslims, Buddhists and so on could only join if they in no way expressed their religious beliefs.

It is the same for the LGBT crowd. Just like the minorities and the religions above, they are forced to 'hide', 'deny', and/or 'ignore' a large part of who they are in order to serve their country. Just because it does not directly attack them does not mean it does not seriously harm them.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/10/10 10:23 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

But then again, I just see anybody who can't take the road of "your lifestyle is not a choice I would make, it might even be something totally anathema to my belief system...but I understand it is your choice and your right, so we'll just not make that a factor in our dealings". Christ I know hardcore bible thumpers who are able to do that. The military is sort of like a gigantic work place, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if you want to be in that workplace, you should be able to find a way to work with people who have characteristics you may not agree with or like.

Well of course, any workplace manager would 'profit', metaphorically speaking, from a tolerant workplace. But until that kind of society becomes a reality, it's rational for them to put safety measures that

It's kind of like forest fires. In the short run, the fact that a forest is incredibly dry and thus susceptible to fires is largely out of the control of the forest ranger. And since he has neither the time nor the resources to reduce the risk of fire by spraying the entire forest in water, his/her only viable option is to make strict rules regulate human meddling with fire, even prohibiting it outright if people are too irresponsible to be careful with fire themselves.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/10/10 10:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/10/10 10:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: This policy is NOT the same as throwing people in jail for talking about homosexuality in general.

This policy is just as bad, even though it has a thin layer of logic to it.

Here are a couple of equivalents that are much more visible:

If DADT involved minorities being OK so long as they bleached their skin and 'hid' among the whites.
If DADT involved religious restrictions and the Muslims, Buddhists and so on could only join if they in no way expressed their religious beliefs.

It is the same for the LGBT crowd. Just like the minorities and the religions above, they are forced to 'hide', 'deny', and/or 'ignore' a large part of who they are in order to serve their country. Just because it does not directly attack them does not mean it does not seriously harm them.

The military already places restrictions on aspects of behavior for purely protocol purposes. What soldiers can wear, what they eat, etc.

Now, that the particular situations you describe do not actually require the implementation of a DADT policy is because tolerance of that particular nature already exists.

The Segregation of military units might seem practical and necessary to a non-racist military administrator if there was a great deal of overt animosity between 'the races'. The military administrator would obviously prefer to have the power to sit all of the army personnel down and tell them to simply STFU and tolerate one another, no one has this power.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be any rules punishing race based in-fighting [or, more rationally, infighting and provocations irrespective of motive] but that it MAY be necessary given the biases at the time.

The key is, I don't support DADT in abstractum, or just for the hell of it. I see a restriction limiting what people are allowed to talk about, or more specifically, what sort of things people can ASK each other about, as being understandable if they genuinely are effective at preventing un-necessary infighting in 'the workplace', or in this case, the military.

I see it as more akin to a situation relating to sexual harassment and the behavior of men and women in the workplace. As an employer, I would prohibit any overtly sexually harassing actions. But I would also say that any employee should come to work in business attire, and act in a business-like fashion. That means not dressing or acting in a way that can reasonably be seen as provocative, no employee should have, nor should they give anyone, a legitimate excuse for sexual harassment.

[Warforger]

At 9/10/10 09:28 PM, RWT wrote:

At 9/10/10 07:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I assumed the military was free from the Constitution during war time.......

Because quartering soldiers in houses is the sort of thing that you do in peace-time...?

........Yah exactly, we're not in a peace time.....

[Camarohusky]

At 9/10/10 11:32 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/10/10 09:28 PM, RWT wrote:

At 9/10/10 07:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I assumed the military was free from the Constitution during war time.......

Because quartering soldiers in houses is the sort of thing that you do in peace-time...?

........Yah exactly, we're not in a peace time.....

Swing and a miss!

The point RWT was making is that the no quarter provision of the Constitution is a war time only provision. Thus the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to the military in a time of war has a large hole poked in it.

[Warforger]

At 9/10/10 11:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/10/10 11:32 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/10/10 09:28 PM, RWT wrote:

At 9/10/10 07:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I assumed the military was free from the Constitution during war time.......

Because quartering soldiers in houses is the sort of thing that you do in peace-time...?

........Yah exactly, we're not in a peace time.....

Swing and a miss!

The point RWT was making is that the no quarter provision of the Constitution is a war time only provision. Thus the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to the military in a time of war has a large hole poked in it.

Your saying that US troops would need to quarter themselves in US citizen houses to fight in Afghanistan? My point is that the US military does things that are unconstitutional and generally has its own laws for how to deal with criminals and PoW, so why would the Constitution apply to something that doesn't effect US citizens in their home.

Quartering troops is actually legal if a law was passed.

[orangebomb]

I'm certain that most gay or lesbian soldiers are more focused on doing their jobs, rather than trying to make googly eyes with another soldier, we all know that much.

But the military is a place where you are under the control of the higher-ups, and they have a uniform set of codes and regulations that prevent any funny business, which according to most of the military brass, includes having affairs with another soldier, regardless of wheather they are straight or gay. Frankly, I see as a needless regulation, because what's the difference between one soldier who does his duty, and another one who does the same thing, but is gay/lesbian? Nothing that I know of.

[RWT]

This is probably de-railing the discussion, but honestly, I don't think there's too much more to be said about DADT; it's on its way out.

At 9/10/10 11:49 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/10/10 11:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/10/10 11:32 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/10/10 09:28 PM, RWT wrote:

At 9/10/10 07:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I assumed the military was free from the Constitution during war time.......

Because quartering soldiers in houses is the sort of thing that you do in peace-time...?

........Yah exactly, we're not in a peace time.....

Swing and a miss!

The point RWT was making is that the no quarter provision of the Constitution is a war time only provision. Thus the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to the military in a time of war has a large hole poked in it.

Your saying that US troops would need to quarter themselves in US citizen houses to fight in Afghanistan? My point is that the US military does things that are unconstitutional and generally has its own laws for how to deal with criminals and PoW, so why would the Constitution apply to something that doesn't effect US citizens in their home.

I'm saying that there are items in the constitution that specifically apply to the military. I've yet to see anything the U.S. military has done that is unconstitutional, other than maybe subverting the congressional power to declare war by calling it a "police action"... that aside, nothing rings a bell. The constitution demands Habaes Corpus be respected, and that everyone be subject to a fair trial. It does not stipulate that military and civilian courts have to be in any way the same, but it does mean that they both follow the same basic rules. The Geneva Convention, which the U.S. ratified, stipulates rules concerning the treatment of POWs, not the U.S. military. And I don't see your point in claiming that the constitution de facto cannot apply to the American military because they are on foreign soil.

And...

Quartering troops is actually legal if a law was passed.

Not true. The constitution can only be overridden by an amendment.

[FatherTime89]

At 9/10/10 07:33 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: It's about fucking time. However, I've heard arguments that this California federal judge superseded her authority. Apparently, her ability as a low federal judge to make a ruling regarding the United States military is in question. I say this should be taken up to the Supreme Court so that the matter can be settled once and for all. Or...Congress could just repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Whichever one's easier I guess.

The beauty of this is that even if the Supreme Court says DADT is constitutional Congress can still legislate it away.

[Ravariel]

At 9/13/10 03:15 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: The beauty of this is that even if the Supreme Court says DADT is constitutional Congress can still legislate it away.

Problem there is that the SCOTUS granting constitutionality gives the law legitimacy, creating political precedent that Congress will find hard to go against.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/13/10 04:13 AM, Ravariel wrote: Problem there is that the SCOTUS granting constitutionality gives the law legitimacy, creating political precedent that Congress will find hard to go against.

Not really. When the Court upholds something it is extremely easy for Congress to get around it. It is when the Court strikes something down that Congress must bend over backward to get an equivalent in place.

This is especially true if a separation of powers, "this is Congress' job to change it", reasoning is used.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/11/10 12:05 AM, RWT wrote: Not true. The constitution can only be overridden by an amendment.

In theory.

[Gorgonof]

At 9/13/10 04:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: i don't see what the big deal is about don't ask, don't tell. i don't see any problem with homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military so long as they keep it to themselves. the fact that a recruiter isn't allowed to ask about your sexual orientation sounds like the very definition of tolerance.

But you can be outed by a third party, you're expected to not be a homosexual before and during service, which means many skilled people are bribed, discharged and denied from our armed forces. And why should they be expected to keep it to themselves? People are allowed to be open about just about any other aspect of their personal lives, there's no good reason why we make an exception for homosexuals.

The fact that anyone suspected of being homosexual is prohibited is the very definition of intolerance, if you ask me.

[FatherTime89]

At 9/13/10 04:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: i don't see what the big deal is about don't ask, don't tell. i don't see any problem with homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military so long as they keep it to themselves.

Because heteros don't have to keep it to thereselves.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/13/10 04:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: i don't see what the big deal is about don't ask, don't tell. i don't see any problem with homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military so long as they keep it to themselves. the fact that a recruiter isn't allowed to ask about your sexual orientation sounds like the very definition of tolerance.

Okay then, if we changed DADT so it would be practicing Muslims/Jews/whoever or even African Americans/Hispanics/Asians could not serve openly in the military, would that fine with you?

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/10/10 06:07 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Well, about time. Also, this puts pressure on Congress to now repeal the act. Election issue? You bet your butt it'll be a least a talking point now.

I don't think the Republicans will pick it up as a point this time around. They are too busy apposing anything to look like they are spending time on something not concerned with the economy. And the dems won't do it because they've been badly burned and they don't want the election to be about gay marriage.

I agree that the ruling is the right one, and that this issue needs more attention, just not that the people in office are the people who would correctly deal with it.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/13/10 06:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: And the dems won't do it because they've been badly burned and they don't want the election to be about gay marriage.

To the contrary, this would be a good point for the Dems to make because it is definitely a win for left and for freedom of expression. While I agree this should not be the major issue in the election, it's certainly a point worth making.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/13/10 11:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/13/10 06:34 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Okay then, if we changed DADT so it would be practicing Muslims/Jews/whoever or even African Americans/Hispanics/Asians could not serve openly in the military, would that fine with you?

i'll tell you what, i'll give you another chance to revise that last post, because it CLEARLY didn't come out the way you wanted.

He repeatred a point I made earlier. DADT forces LGBT people to hide a huge part of who they are. It would be akin to forcing all non-Christians to hide the fact that they are not Christian and to not do any of the things that make them who they are. Also akin to forcing black people to hide their 'blackness' by wearing white face. Also, imagine if the military said no Republicans or conservatives may talk about it. That's a huge part of people's lives that the government is restricting because it doesn't have the testicles to just flat out allow it.

Just because it ignores homosexuality in the recruiting process, does not mean it doesn't discriminate.

i mean, either that, or a series of blows to the head knocked you into a double-digit IQ, but i like to assume the best.

Too bad the military doesn't pull a DADT on stupidity...

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/13/10 11:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: i'll tell you what, i'll give you another chance to revise that last post, because it CLEARLY didn't come out the way you wanted.

Or clearly you didn't understand what I wrote the first time, so let me repeat the question and why don't you answer it?

Okay then, if we changed DADT so it would be practicing Muslims/Jews/whoever or even African Americans/Hispanics/Asians could not serve openly in the military, would that fine with you?

Or, to put it in more simple terms because apparently you have trouble with complex sentence structure,

If it was any other discriminatory act that prevented a group of people from serving in the military, would you be fine with that?

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/14/10 12:07 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: ALL IT DOES IS SAY "keep it to yourself". You seem to have a problem with that most basic of facts.

Please answer the question. Would you be fine with a policy that discriminates against a certain group of people in the military? It's a simple question, yes or no.

For the sake of this argument, I'm going to quote Camarohusky.

At 9/13/10 11:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: He repeated a point I made earlier. DADT forces LGBT people to hide a huge part of who they are. It would be akin to forcing all non-Christians to hide the fact that they are not Christian and to not do any of the things that make them who they are. Also akin to forcing black people to hide their 'blackness' by wearing white face. Also, imagine if the military said no Republicans or conservatives may talk about it. That's a huge part of people's lives that the government is restricting because it doesn't have the testicles to just flat out allow it.

[LordJaric]

At 9/14/10 12:07 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/13/10 11:58 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: If it was any other discriminatory act that prevented a group of people from serving in the military, would you be fine with that?

IT DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE!!!

IT DOESN'T PREVENT HOMOSEXUALS FROM SERVING!!!

ALL IT DOES IS SAY "keep it to yourself". You seem to have a problem with that most basic of facts.

Even if they don't tell anyone they can still get kicked out if it is found out they are gay, so yeah it discriminates, hell the "keep it to yourself" is still discrimination.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/14/10 12:28 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: or d. a flaming homosexual who puts his soldiers in uncomfortable situations (especially since bathrooms are gender-separate), and leaves the door open to being the laughingstock of the base because he's, well, gay.

So let me ask you this: would you personally be fine with an openly identified Muslim in your squad who prays five times a day? Despite the fact that he's Muslim?

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/14/10 12:31 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: since you're gonna take the arguement literally, then no, I would NOT be fine with it. especially since there is a HUGE difference between ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Then why are you so for this policy when it is CLEARLY discriminatory? How then is there a difference between ethnicity and sexual orientation?

Or are telling me you're more afraid gay man than an say an Arab or a Muslim?