October 12, 2010

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips has enjoined the enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It violates free speech and due process, she wrote, rejecting the arguments made by the Department of Justice lawyers who fought against the change... change that President Obama promised a year ago that he would deliver. Here, watch him — it's chilling to witness now:



"It's important to be honest among friends," he says at 0:24 and then literally puts his tongue in his cheek. He was lying and he knew it. Lying about being honest.

But what damnable luck for the Democrats to have this thrown at them 2 weeks before the election! It's such a bad issue for Obama. He hasn't done what he promised, and he's fought against constitutional rights that he ought to be actively pursuing, whether he'd made promises or not. He's going to have to rest on the argument that he was always all about Congress making the change. But why hasn't his Congress gone his way? And do Democrats in Congress want this issue forefronted now? They've only made everyone unhappy — people who want DADT repealed and people who don't. And then there's the additional issue of "activist" judges.... (Phillips was appointed by President Clinton, who, of course, signed the original Don't Ask Don't Tell statute.)

ADDED: Andrew Sullivan:
So once again, we will have the political prospect of the Obama administration simultaneously legally defending the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court, while politically saying they oppose both...

Yes, the GOP is the main party to blame. But no, this does not excuse the extra-cautious, gays-are-radioactive mindset of the Obama administration...
The GOP is convenient, and the Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights.

UPDATE: The Obama administration, continuing its active fight against gay rights, will appeal the decision in the case about the Defense of Marriage Act.

213 comments:

1 – 200 of 213   Newer›   Newest»
AST said...

A lot of military rules restrict free speech. You're not allowed to criticize your commanders, for instance. When you enlist, you surrender quite a few civil rights for the sake of morale and good order in the military. But you get quite a few benefits, too. If you want to be a gay activist, fine. Just don't do it in the military.

This whole thing makes about as much sense and joining and then filing suit because they wake you too early every day--And those marches and calisthenics and drills and spit and polish.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Doesn't he have two more years to fulfill the promise before the statement is a lie? Actually, let me rephrase: he has two more years, before he can be called a liar.

I suppose it's more important for you to be able to call him a liar, anyway... isn't that the important thing? Chilling.

If you support the repeal of DADT, take note of the article you linked to: If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

The logic behind insisting that Congress make the decision, as opposed to a judge, is of course to make the change more unassailable, "Activist Judges" now being a steady drumbeat from the right.

Jake said...

Ann,

You are such a phony. You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose.

This is THE civil rights issue of our time and but you treat it as just a big game.

traditionalguy said...

Obama will say that The Judge must be getting some of that Chamber of Commerce laundered "foreign money". That miserable lie is his latest and greatest. Does a community organizer lie to both sides? Obama is unable to say anything that he really means. That is a mental illness.

Quayle said...

how does a federal judge have the power to order the military to do anything?

Doesn't this run afoul of the political question doctrine?

Jim said...

How is Phillips an "activist judge?"

I've always thought that the Obama DOJ was defending this statute in court precisely because they want it struck down.

Speaking as someone who served on submarines under DADT (who never told and wasn't asked, because nobody gave a damn), I can tell you that this is a stupid policy. We're losing some of our best people because of this piece of social engineering. Let's repeal it and let the military get back to the things it's supposed to be doing.

Salamandyr said...

I support ending the ban on gays in the military (which isn't called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", no matter how many ignorant news writers describe it as such). This was an act of political cowardice by the Obama Administration. Too cowardly to actively take a stand and propose a change in the law, (which he could have done at any time as a Senator), instead they choose to punt on defending their law in court, and hide behind the judges robes, letting her make the hard calls. This President is a joke

Dave said...

Serving in the military is not a right. Currently it is a privilege, the military removes people from eligibility for a host a reasons. Formerly, in the days of the draft, it was an obligation.

Now you can reasonably make a strong argument that sexuality is not relevant ("You don't have to be straight to shoot straight" Barry Goldwater), but arguing that it's a right is a leap in logic.

MadisonMan said...

Had someone died? Why the black tie?

Rocketeer67 said...

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose.

Precisely. So, tell me again, why hasn't Obama made the change, with unassailable majorities in both the House and the Senate?

Of course, I'm only asking tongue in cheek.

Michael said...

He is the commander in chief. He can issue an executive order and presto away goes dadt. Right?

dbp said...

I will give Obama half credit on this one. He did fail to get a solidly Democratic congress to act on something they mostly believe in. This is a failure of leadership. The president is supposed to enforce the laws and since DADT is the law of the land, he should be directing the justice dept to defend it.

The weasely thing to do is to defend the law in an half-assed way and let the judge do your dirty work.

Jason (the commenter) said...

AST: This whole thing makes about as much sense and joining and then filing suit because they wake you too early every day--And those marches and calisthenics and drills and spit and polish.

If only those were comparable. Under DADT gay service members have to be celibate, aren't allowed to fall in love, or start families. You're in danger of losing your job otherwise. AST, perhaps your family means as much to you as polishing your shoes, but I hope not!

Bryan C said...

I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify something for me. (And I mean that seriously.)

It's my understanding that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue" was just a workaround to allow gays to serve in the military despite UCMJ Section 125, which explicity states that anyone who practices sodomy cannot serve. DADT(DHDP) provides a layer of plausible deniability so that article need not be invoked.

If that's right, then won't overturning this policy simply revert everything back to the UCMJ's much less lenient position? Shouldn't we change the UCMJ first?

As it is now, I get the impression that gay "advocates" are counting on a mass outing of gays in active military service, just to make a point. Which seems awfully selfish toward probable gays happily serving in the military who don't want to be outed or dishonorably discharged.

madawaskan said...

They've only made everyone unhappy — people who want DADT repealed and people who don't. And then there's the additional issue of "activist" judges.... (Phillips was appointed by President Clinton, who, of course, signed the original Don't Ask Don't Tell statute.)

Holy DADT Vortex.

Shanna said...

You are such a phony. You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose.

Gosh, if only we had an overwhelming number of Democrats in congress along with democrat president...then maybe we could have repealed it! Wouldn't that be something!

This rule should be repealed, but not sure it should be repealed like this.

stevenehrbar said...

Jake,

If Obama thought it really was "THE civil rights issue of our time", he could have repealed DADT in 2009. All he would have had to was make "THE civil rights issue of our time" his top priority, instead of his hypercompromised mess of a health care bill that's going to get torn to shreds by the next Congress anyway.

Obama doesn't care about gays, he just plays a game to get gays' votes and money. And your response is to denounce Ann for accurately pointing out that a game is being played?

I'll believe it's anything more than a game when gay rights activists stop treating it like a game. That means no endorsements, votes, or contributions to candidates (like Obama) who are openly more hostile on "THE civil rights issue of our time" than Dick Cheney.

El Pollo Real said...

I think some of this is caused by a fear of having a guy like Titus serving and doing a lot of telling without being asked and mucking things up and causing a big drama queen distraction when and where it's not needed.

madawaskan said...

This is THE civil rights issue of our time and but you treat it as just a big game.

Projection, Batman.

Jake said...

Ann, you also know that a Republican led filibuster in the Senate killed the repeal this year.

Ann, what have YOU actually done to promote equal rights for gays and lesbians? Lets see what you have to say if the Tea Party Republicans that you have been pimping over the last year take control of Congress. My guess is that you will be silent if that time comes.

Jason (the commenter) said...

dbp: The weasely thing to do is to defend the law in an half-assed way and let the judge do your dirty work.

Gays are not giving him credit for this. He had the audacity to ask the judge to only apply this ruling to members of the Log Cabin Republicans. If Obama had had his way, only they, not Democrats or Independents would have been protected. He's been doing crap like that for two years, giving us the "fierce advocate" talk the entire time.

David said...

Michael said...
"He is the commander in chief. He can issue an executive order and presto away goes dadt. Right?"

Wrong. DADT exists because of a statute passed by Congress (and signed by President Clinton.)

The President can not overturn a statute by executive order.

But he could have made it a priority and used his power to repeal this stupid law. He has not.

dbp said...

The UCMJ contains language which, if enforced, makes sexual relations a crime if you are unmarried.

Michael said...

David; Thanks. I never believed it was a priority for him, just another talking point for the (formerly) faithful.

edutcher said...

Since you get a board of inquiry if you Tell, how are they denied due process? If The Zero and Holder refuse to appeal, that's the final nail in '12.

As for the damnable luck, maybe this judge wants the Demos to get creamed.

Rocketeer67 said...

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose.

Precisely. So, tell me again, why hasn't Obama made the change, with unassailable majorities in both the House and the Senate?

Of course, I'm only asking tongue in cheek.


This is why politicians love Judicial Review.

Salamandyr said...

The real issue here is that our President is a cowardly piece of offal.

Drew said...

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose.

This is THE civil rights issue of our time and but you treat it as just a big game.




Wouldn't it be more fair to say that the Democrats treat it like a big game? They've had control of Congress and the White House for almost two years. If they really were interested in overturning DADT, why haven't they done it? Democrats have the numbers and a White House that (allegedly) won't veto it.

Or could it be that they need it as a political carrot on a stick. They'll hold it out there as something they're for and Republicans are against, but they'll never do a thing on it because they wouldn't have a carrot anymore.

Montagne Montaigne said...

A judge is only "activist" if deciding on a social issue that liberals hold dear. Activism in the service of far right causes is called "originalism."

dbp said...

Given this: I'm not sure how much of a difference this ruling will make in the actual lives of gay service members. They can be open about their orientation, but that is about it. Article 125 has no exception for marriage even.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Drew said...

I never believed it was a priority for him, just another talking point for the (formerly) faithful.

Oh, they're still faithful. They're like an abused spouse, forever crawling back to the abuser. Because the abuser here is thinking "Well, who else are they gonna vote for? Republicans?!"

Denver said...

If Althouse had a gay or lesbian child she would not be so cavalier with this issue.

Montagne Montaigne said...

How to make this clearer: REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE. You have to have an even bigger majority than Democrats have to overcome the filibuster.

Comrade X said...

If she'd just close Gitmo and order singlepayer, she'd be the one we were waiting for.

SFC B said...

Yes Bryan C. Repealling DADT without making the necessary changes to the UCMJ basically means the military returns to asking people their orientation, denying entry to those who admit to being a homosexual, and separating those who lied.

I always assume that the politicians actually crafting the legislation know this, and that any such provisions make the necessary changes to the UCMJ.

However it would make my cynical heart fill with joy should a DADT-repeal measure pass, and then people realize all they did was repeal DADT, not the underlying policy which DADT patched over in the first place.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I do enjoy how the Log Cabin Republicans didn't rely on politicians to get DADT overturned. They thought they had rights as American citizens and went to the courts to enforce the rule of law.

We often forget that the majority doesn't get to do whatever it wants in our country, they have to abide by the constitution that gives them their legitimacy and respect the rights of minorities.

Well, God bless America!

Denver said...

Every Democrat in the Senate voted for cloture while every Republican vote to Filibuster.

dbp said...

REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE.

Until Scott Brown got elected, the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. 60 is what it takes to bring cloture.

Palladian said...

"Denver said...

If Althouse had a gay or lesbian child she would not be so cavalier with this issue."

Althouse does have a gay son. Do your research.

Montagne Montaigne said...

I don't get it. If you oppose repealing DADT, you should be happy the Democrats didn't get it done. If you support the policy or don't think gays should serve, by all means support the Republican party.

But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense. UNLESS what you care about most... is being able to call Obama a liar, and liberals punks, etc. Then I start to understand.

1jpb said...

I think the 'equal sign' (which is behind BHO) is a better logo than the rainbow. I had seen those stickers on cars for a couple years before someone told me they were gay.

I can understand the meaning of the equal symbol. But, why are rainbows gay? Makes no sense.

Re Althouse: I think it's funny when she blusters.

1jpb said...

"UNLESS what you care about most... is being able to call Obama a liar, and liberals punks, etc. "

Bluster is as bluster does.

Chase said...

I am with a singing group that does carols in the Mission Inn Resort in Riverside, and have sung for Judge Virginia Phillips several times there. She is nice and pleasant and not given to the 'airs' that so many judges often put on.

That said, I completely disagree with her decision. I want the courts out of military readiness issues.

John said...

Quite right, Bryan C.

DADT does not prevent gays from serving, it permits them to serve. Here is what the US Code ie; Federal Law says:

"TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 > 15)


(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—"


You get that everyone? (Not you Bryan, you seem to) Not "may be" separated but "shall be"

If a commander finds out that a troop or sailor has engaged in homosexual activity, on duty or off, they have no choice but to expel them from the service.

DADT let them turn a blind eye and pretend it was not happening.

Now it will be interesting to see if Congress voids the underlying law.

I would not be willing to bet on it.

If they do not, and if a court does not, gays will no longer be able to serve.

Be careful what you wish for (on DADT) it looks like you got it. And I doubt you will like the results.

John Henry

Salamandyr said...

Montagne, you said:

REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE.

You should be aware that the lifting of the ban on gays on the military (as pointed out, lifting DADT just reverts the military to it's even more anti-gay servicemembers state) was attached to an unpopular bill that was going to be fillibustered anyway, because of the DREAM Act. I'd have fillibustered it, and I support removing the ban.

Anthony said...

Denver said: "If Althouse had a gay or lesbian child she would not be so cavalier with this issue."

Denver, what you don't know is making you look like an idiot.

Class factotum said...

That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

I like the way the Times leaves out the part that the Dream Act was part of the same vote. I don't care about who's in the military. I do, however, care about who gets in-state tuition at schools I support with my tax money.

Ann Althouse said...

"You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose."

"But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense. UNLESS what you care about most... is being able to call Obama a liar, and liberals punks, etc. Then I start to understand."

I don't particularly support the Republicans. I do despise what the Democrats have done with all the trust and power that was given them in 2008. And the people who voted because of gay rights were tricked. If you support the economic approach of the Republicans but care about all about gay rights, who should you have voted for in 2008?

Chase said...

Here is one immutable result to the elimination of DADT that will happen: a large margin of evangelical kids no longer joining the military. In fact, the military is aware that this drop off because of the DADT debate has already begun. And that may be just fine with many of the posters here. But consider this: when the military already has a percentage of recruits self-identifying as "evangelical Christian" that is more than 3 times the percentage in the national population, where do you think some of those future recruiting numbers will be made up? Not all evangelicals considering military service are now going to avoid signing up, but a lot - and eventually most, will stay away. There are not enough potential gay recruits and sympathizers to the cause to bring those numbers anywhere near back up.

The military is fully aware of this, has been quietly looking for ways to address it, but feels enormous, unprecedented political pressure to eliminate DADT.

Let's take a look at this again next year, and especially in 5 years, shall we? I don’t believe it’s going to turn out nearly as well as the DADT eliminators would have you believe it will.

The military has a main mission and that mission remains the bedrock same whether or not current society loves and honors the military or hates and despises the military And that mission is clearly not to make everyone feel good about themselves for being politically correct.

Salamandyr said...

But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps, you know, you might support one party or the other because gay service in the military isn't your highest priority? Perhaps tax issues, or healthcare, or social security privatization, are higher concerns?

I wonder if the judge left in place the ban on heterosexual sodomy. One can be discharged for a blow job by a girl too.

1jpb said...

"If you support the economic approach of the Republicans"

The "if it's broke, don't fix it" type of voters.

Brian said...

@MM:
How to make this clearer: REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE. You have to have an even bigger majority than Democrats have to overcome the filibuster.

Which is another thing - there are procedural rules in the Senate for suspending the rules so that a simple majority vote is all that is required to bring legislation to a vote. If a senator wants to filibuster, he/she would then have to literally stand and talk continously to keep the vote from occurring.

This was called the "nuclear" option when Republican were in control, complaining about obstructionist Democrats overusing the filibuster rule.

Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority for a while, until Scott Brown was elected. This was about two months before they used reconciliation to pass Obamacare. But if they had used the opportunity to suspend the rules, they could have passed Obamacare, then took up DADT, cap-n-trade, etc.

It seems to me the reason this didn't occur has as much to do with centrist Dems not wanting to be forced to vote for all the controversial legislation all at once. Even though it's been debated to death. And it's the civil rights issue of our times.

Democrats are running from their votes on Obamacare as it is. Imagine if back in March & April they had also voted to end DADT and passed cap-n-trade?

MayBee said...

When will they start enforcing the Americans With Disabilities act on the military?

Montagne Montaigne said...

"If you support the economic approach of the Republicans"

Then you are a supporter of wind, dust, and the vortex. Or you're a huge sucker. With a really short memory.

former law student said...

The big question is how did the judge decide this was justiciable, because normally courts grant great deference to the military's view on how to run the military. So what was her rationale for taking up this case?

Concerning the political issues: Just a few posts ago, the professor wanted Obama to enforce the federal marijuana laws. Now she wants the President to refuse to enforce the DADT statute. Should Obama just call Althouse for guidance on which laws to enforce and which to ignore?

The President properly deferred to the military, which has been working on an implementation plan for the repeal of DADT. The plan is due December 1.

Democrats put DADT repeal in the Defense budget bill, the same place DADT was originally put in 1994.

H.AMDT.672 (A019)
Amends: H.R.5136
Sponsor: Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] (offered 5/27/2010)
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment repeals "Don't Ask Don't Tell" only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. The amendment also includes a 60 day period after certification before the repeal takes effect.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 79 printed in House Report 111-498 to repeal Dont Ask Dont Tell only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. It would also include a 60 day period after certification before the repeal took effect.

STATUS:

5/27/2010 8:29pm:
Amendment (A019) offered by Mr. Murphy, Patrick. (consideration: CR 5/28/2010 H4055-4056, H4062-4063; text: CR 5/28/2010 H4055-4056)
5/27/2010 10:08pm:
On agreeing to the Murphy, Patrick amendment (A019) Agreed to by recorded vote: 234 - 194 (Roll no. 317).


The bill was passed by the House but the GOP Senators refused to let it come to a vote in the Senate, citing "politics" as the reason they didn't like it.

1jpb said...

Sully will be talking about this on tradguy's favorite tv show today.

former law student said...

That miserable lie is his latest and greatest.

1. Money is fungible.
2. There are no barriers in the USCoC to prevent foreign-sourced money from being used for political ad purposes.

Brian said...

@MM:
Then you are a supporter of wind, dust, and the vortex. Or you're a huge sucker. With a really short memory.

But Obama and the Dems are green energy supporters. They believe the wind will create millions of green energy jobs.

So if you are supporting the Democratic agenda, you have to support the vortex also!

former law student said...

All he would have had to was make "THE civil rights issue of our time" his top priority

Like Clinton did? Gays in the military killed his initiative, leaving him no consolation but toying with a zaftig aide.

Peter Friedman said...

Supporting the social policies of the left and the economic policies of the right?

Wow, now that is an effete, out of touch intellectual who cares only about herself.

michelle_nowicki said...

Why do civilians think they know what is best for the military? Don't you think the people IN the military would know what is best for them? I hate to tell you that the military is a whole different world. There is a lot you do not do. There are a lot of rights you give up when you enter the military and YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GIVING UP WHEN YOU ENTER! So all you civilians, stop trying to change something YOU ARE NOT APART OF!!! We don't tell you how to live your life, stop trying to change our way of military life.

former law student said...

was attached to an unpopular bill that was going to be fillibustered anyway

Appropriating money for our National Defense is unpopular? What are you, some kinda Commie peacenik?

Titus said...

What about the supposed pictures of Brett Favre's hog all over the internets?

Real or fake?

If real, I am not impressed.

former law student said...

And the people who voted because of gay rights were tricked.

Obama signed on to the Labors of Hercules and all the professor can say is he's not moving fast enough.

DADT will be dead by Christmas or I'll eat a copy of H.R. 5136 as engrossed in the House of Representatives.

Pogo said...

I tought gay marriage was THE civil rights issue for our time?

I just can't seem to keep up.

former law student said...

when the military already has a percentage of recruits self-identifying as "evangelical Christian" that is more than 3 times the percentage in the national population, where do you think some of those future recruiting numbers will be made up?

Dude, where do you think all the gay people come from? Evangelicals and Mormons, that's who I ever see.

Pogo said...

"Dude, where do you think all the gay people come from?"

Yeah, that'll work.
Good plan, fls.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Ann Althouse, et al.
RE: Gee....

. But why hasn't his Congress gone his way? And do Democrats in Congress want this issue forefronted now?
-- Ann Althouse

....maybe it has something to do with the thought that the military and, consequentially, the fate of nations is something more than a social science experiment.

Ya THINK? Or maybe you don't.

Tell me....

....how would you like to get a live-blood transfusion on an isolated battlefield KNOWING that the source could well be HIV-positive?

You don't have to answer. I already know your response.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Gay is a one-word oxymoron.]

info said...

"damnable luck" HARDLY! Reap what you sew...what goes around comes around. Familiar ideas to a conservative...not so much to a lib...

Synova said...

I'm trying to remember when, after joining the service, my right to free speech and due process was violated...

Oh, yeah.

Dur!

DADT was something that actually needed leadership to get out in front of. But certainly, it was something that Congress needed to do.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: info
RE: Indeed

"damnable luck" HARDLY! Reap what you sew...what goes around comes around. Familiar ideas to a conservative...not so much to a lib... -- info

At least not until their doctor tells THEM they are HIV-positive.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[We have sown the wind. We shall reap the whirlwind.]

Big Mike said...

@FLS, perhaps to you the notion of dealing with sticky issues through judicial fiat makes perfectly good sense, but some of us are more thoughtful and are uneasy, if not outright repulsed, by having judges decide issues that should be addressed legislatively.

That's separate and apart from whether DADT is good policy or not, so don't bother trying to argue that issue one way or the other. The issue to me is whether such divisive issues are rightly the province of the Judge Judy's of the world.

former law student said...

Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority for a while, until Scott Brown was elected.

Not counting scheduled recess periods, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for eleven weeks so far: three last July, four in October, and four in January-February. If only they had better utilized their time.

former law student said...

Big Mike, that's why I brought up the justiciability issue. I don't see how Judge Phillips was able to take up the case at all.

Shanna said...

But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense if you support lower taxes/spending/etc as well and you rank that higher on the priority list than repealing DADT. Of course, the fact that the policy was put in place by democrats and huge majority democrats were unable to repeal it might also be a factor, since supporting democrats apparently doesn't get the policy repealed.

Titus said...

Let's focus on Brett's hog rather than fags in the military.

Titus said...

There have not been any tit postings lately.

Now punch it Marge.

More tits now.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Heh

Just out of curiosity....



Additionally....

How many of you are familiar enough with military history to tell me what Tito had to do with people engaging sexual activity—instead of their duties—while in the combat zone?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....but not many around here are going to 'like' it.[

Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. That blank space in my previous post was....

How many around here have SERVED in the military?

Cedarford said...

I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous. We wouldn't last a year if each member of Congress, all 535 of them, could act like independent satraps like the 3,168 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,645 district court judges.

Imagine each Congress Rep could pass any bill he or she wanted, all on their own!

When we set up an independent judiciary, with a couple dozen judges net inc Supreme Court justices "riding to handle Circuit Court deliberations" - we never intended for todays situation - for 3,168 people to have the autonomous power to jerk any decision by Congress, the military, or the President around to constrain them in favor of a lone wolf judge's agenda.

The activists on the judiciary are determined to shove gay marriage, gays in the military down the throats of the American public - no matter what they want, no matter what the elected officials or appointees of the Executive think should happen.

It all rests on the very thin thread of each of us, no matter what a judge's personal agenda - remaining blindly worshipful of judges as Gods over us all. All 3,168 of them.
When the public or the other Branches of Government finally stand up to the "lone wolves" of the judiciary - is when this all ends. And the Constitutional System is brought into balance again.

The greatest blows for Democracy ever struck after the Revolution were when Andrew Jackson told John Marshall to go fuck himself..then by Abraham Lincoln when he told Roger Taney to go fuck himself.

Synova said...

"REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE.

You should be aware that the lifting of the ban on gays on the military (as pointed out, lifting DADT just reverts the military to it's even more anti-gay servicemembers state) was attached to an unpopular bill that was going to be fillibustered anyway,..
"

Which makes the claim of a Republican filibuster ON THIS ISSUE a lie. And I more or less expected that was the case the first time someone mentioned it, but I didn't know, just suspected.

So I'm wondering how much gay people like to be treated like idiots by their elected representatives?

Because you can see it... "Wow, the Republicans hate this and are going to filibuster, how can we make that work for us? I know, lets tack DADT on there. We can tell the ignoramuses that it was all the evil Republican's fault without having to stick our political necks out. Win-win."

garage mahal said...

Not counting scheduled recess periods, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for eleven weeks so far:

And that's counting treacherous Joe Lieberman, who isn't even a Democrat.

Maguro said...

This was an act of political cowardice by the Obama Administration. Too cowardly to actively take a stand and propose a change in the law, (which he could have done at any time as a Senator), instead they choose to punt on defending their law in court, and hide behind the judges robes, letting her make the hard calls.

This.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: Here is one immutable result to the elimination of DADT that will happen: a large margin of evangelical kids no longer joining the military.

I don't see a problem here. America needs to drastically cut its military spending. A soldier shortage should be the last thing we are worrying about.

And where are these evangelicals going to go instead of the military? Most colleges and large businesses let gays serve openly. The military can't be a weird sociological experiment, which it has been for many years.

Also, the military just became an option for gay children who don't have the support of their families, and ones who do, but want to help defend their country. Plus it just became more attractive to people who always thought it was backwards.

Synova said...

The Congress could have voted to revise certain "blue" areas of the UCMJ. Package the "what sort of sex you can have with your wife" rules with something else obsolete, call it comprehensive, and vote on the changes more or less on the down low. I'm sure there is something else in there causing problems if it was enforced. Do a general clean up job.

That would open up a lot of options and a lot of flexibility to do something constructive about DADT.

But hey, these are politicians we're talking about.

Belkys said...

So they wont allow King David, Caesar or Alexander in the army?
The Israel Minister of Defense when asked on the subject , he answered this is the army of King David, so why will we forbid gays in the military?

Belkys said...

BTW: Montaigne wont be allowed eithr

MayBee said...

1. Money is fungible.
2. There are no barriers in the USCoC to prevent foreign-sourced money from being used for political ad purposes.


The same is true for any individual donating to any group which produces political ads. Any individual may have money from a foreign source.

Also, are we pretending political ads are more influential than say....think tank websites that have the President of the United States repeating their talking points on the campaign trail?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Cedarford: I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous.

I'm happy to hear the government being told it can't do something. That's one less area of control it has, and one more I do!

edutcher said...

Why is anyone surprised that The Zero went back on his word? Aside from Rush's dictum, oft-proven, that everything The Zero says has an expiration date, no one wants to mention the accepted general proposition that The Zero doesn't like homosexuals.

1jpb said...

"If you support the economic approach of the Republicans"

The "if it's broke, don't fix it" type of voters.


As opposed to the Demos, who operate on the principle, "If it's broke, break it some more until it's fixed".

Synova said...

Chuck: Tito? Tito, Tito? Not some other Tito?

I don't know. Was Tito the guy who was trying to out-reproduce the Soviets?

I do know that military History-wise, military discipline and stopping the "rape and pillage" part of conquest was/is indispensable. It makes "private" parts of a soldier's behavior into legitimate matters for military discipline and manifests *now* as General Order #1, or whatever it is, that forbids consensual sex in our theaters of war. ALL sex. And allows our government to formally forbid our servicemen overseas from visiting prostitutes. It also applies to "consensual" sex within a command structure, and adultery with the spouses of subordinates.

Synova said...

Oh yes... King David... who sent a man to the battle-front to die so David could take his wife.

Fabulous example.

Thanks.

garage mahal said...

Why is anyone surprised that The Zero went back on his word?

I don't recall Obama saying he would have ended DADT on this date in any campaign promise. Do you?

Michael said...

Garage: No, he is going to get to this after the important stuff like demonizing the Chamber of Commerce and, get this, Fox News. After that important business is taken care of he will get to the next thing. Perhaps DADT.

Ann Althouse said...

"Reap what you sew"

That's what Heidi Klum says.

stevenehrbar said...

How to make this clearer: REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE. You have to have an even bigger majority than Democrats have to overcome the filibuster.

Republicans weren't able to filibuster health care, were they?

The Democrats are not in favor of gay rights, they're just in favor of gay money and gay votes. The Republicans won't repeal DADT? Neither will the Democrats when they have a filibuster-proof majority. The Republicans won't support gay marriage? Neither will the Democratic President.

All he would have had to was make "THE civil rights issue of our time" his top priority

Like Clinton did? Gays in the military killed his initiative, leaving him no consolation but toying with a zaftig aide.


So your position is that principle on "THE civil rights issue of our time" should be tossed aside so that . . . um, Obama could lose the initiative and control of Congress just as completely as Clinton did? On the same actual issues—projected deficits ad infinitum and unpopular health care legislation?

jr565 said...

Should we expect courage from democrats on any isssue? I'll note that this is exactly what was done vis a vis the Iraq war. They support a position until they have to actually deal with the issue, but then rather than actually address the consequences of said actions, feign ignorance or simply ignore the problem.
back in 1998 the Congress, under a Democratic President passed the Iraq Liberation Act. EVERYONE knew at the time why they were passing that act, and EVERYONE who in fact signed on believed that Iraq was a threat to world security, was actively pursuing weapons productions and would never change so long as Sadaam and the B'aathists were in charge. And they also singed on for a transition to democracy, suggesting that it could work in Iraq. And they further gave George Bush authority to go to war.
Only when it started looking unpopular they then turned around and said Bush Lied! (and people died!) as if half of them hadn't been arguing the exact same thing only a few years prior. Moral cowards!
So now we come to DADT. And the dems say they are going to pass it. And the Dems have the presidency and the Congress and the House. And if they don't pass it now they will not pass it. And what do they do? They pass the buck. Moral cowards!
(note, I'm not sure I agree with repealing of DADT, I'm merely commenting on the dems complete lack of fortitude.)

jr565 said...

Salamandar wrote:
I wonder if the judge left in place the ban on heterosexual sodomy. One can be discharged for a blow job by a girl too.


That's THE OTHER civil rights issue of our time. How come straights can't get blowjobs by girls? WTF?
We nee to bring this up with the president and call the ACLU!

dbp said...

Obama will take credit, among his friends, for ending DADT--even though he didn't lift a finger to make it happen. Among the rest of the country, he will blame it on the judge--when he knows full-well that his justice dept. defended the law in an half-assed manner.

Win-win, or loose-loose depending on the gullibility of the people.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Synova
RE: About Tito

Showing Your (1) 'Age' and.or (2) Ignorance?

Tito, the leader of the 'resistance' in the Balkins during WWII.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. What do YOU know of my 'additional' question?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: I Would Expect....

....Cedarford to reject the idea that the third arm of our Republic should hold sway over the other two arms: Executive and Legislative.

Cedarford, obviously, doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and the likes of Cedarford are NOT going to enjoy it.]

hombre said...

MM wrote: But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense.

But, of course, since it's all about gays. Unemployment, the deficit, cap and trade, Democrat dissembling and corruption, none of that matters.

El Pollo Real said...

Chuck(le) wrote: P.S. What do YOU know of my 'additional' question?

Dunno but I'll bet the Albanians had it worse under Hoxha.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

@354 pm "We're losing some of our best people because of this piece of social engineering. Let's repeal it and let the military get back to the things it's supposed to be doing."

The left is trying to jam social engineering INTO the military, try to see things as they are.

The military is about killing and breaking things. That is ALL that it's about, nothing more and nothing less.

Leave the military out of YOUR social engineering.

Methadras said...

Does a judge have the power to revoke an executive order?

Alex said...

Supporting the social policies of the left and the economic policies of the right?

Wow, now that is an effete, out of touch intellectual who cares only about herself.


projection, they name is Democrat.

Alex said...

Yes Althouse is horribly evil for basically being a libertarian. the only way to moral goodness is to be a totalitarian-loving Communist shithead.

Alex said...

Ann, what have YOU actually done to promote equal rights for gays and lesbians?

When will you stop beating your wife?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Cedarford: I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous.

I'm happy to hear the government being told it can't do something. That's one less area of control it has, and one more I do!
===========================
Explain how one unelected government official telling the rest of the government, the military, the rank and file soldiers and their families how it is going to be - is "less government control"????

I served. I also know from this next generation, a number of young guys who served and still serve with distinction in the Army and AF. Two nephews ended up in Ramadi in the absolute worst year. None were or are now what you would call "homosexual tolerant".

Had the more open, flamboyant gays been allowed in, the odds are that many of them would not have enlisted or gone ROTC then got a commission (two current AF guys I know, one Army - all combat vets)

I can see the new gay military having some real downside in recruiting - outside the minimal numbers who sign up as is from the progressive jewish, liberal, blue state colleges of liberal arts...the rest of the country where 99.99% of the military comes from, is not Manhattan south of 125th Steet or San Fransisco.

jr565 said...

Woud there be all gay squads? or would gays be mixed in with general population. If gays and straights can be mixed together in the same squad and barracks and there is no issue, why couldn't straight men and women also be in the same barracks.
What if the straight guys promise they won't look at the women in a sexual manner (and vice versa). Can't they all just get along? Why is the military so bigoted?

Why should gays be allowed to look at bodies that turn them on while straights are deprived of said right? Similarly, why should straight men or women be leered at by gays who might look at them in a sexual way? If gays get their own squad, why are they allowed to mingle with people who are all on the same page sexually? Why can't straights get the same benefit.
If I were in the military, I would want to ogle women in my squad while they take showers, and sleep in the same baracks with them at night. Even better if they get to watch me take showers and ogle me. Lights out will take on a whole new meaning.

Lincolntf said...

So now that the Obama Administration is appealing the "repeal" of DADT, I expect to hear Barack himself decried as a homophobic right-winger.
Waiting, waiting, waiting...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Does a judge have the power to revoke an executive order?

This is revealing. I'm wondering if Methadras' musing is reflective of what other Irrelephants think in daring to question whether an independent judiciary can rule on the constitutionality of executive acts.

There's your constituency for tyranny, right there.

DADvocate said...

Why isn't Jeremy here to defend the gays and fight the good fight? Has he been frozen into inaction between his love for Obama and his love for gays? If he really cared about gay rights, Jeremy would abandon all support of Obama.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: DADvocate
RE: Heh

Why isn't Jeremy here to defend the gays and fight the good fight? Has he been frozen into inaction between his love for Obama and his love for gays? If he really cared about gay rights, Jeremy would abandon all support of Obama. -- DADvocate

Three guesses....first two don't count....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Conscience doth make cowards of us all. -- Shakespeare[

Jason (the commenter) said...

Cedarford: Explain how one unelected government official telling the rest of the government, the military, the rank and file soldiers and their families how it is going to be - is "less government control"????

In America our government has a balance of powers. The executive and legislative branches can pass all sorts of laws, but they are not allowed to do so if they violate the constitution, which is where they get the authority to pass laws in the first place. They have been told they can't pass any laws they want.

Furthermore, with this ruling many people are gaining the ability to die for our country, who were discriminated against because the majority was trying to impose religious standards on them. And many people in the military now get to be treated the same as other soldiers.

Two nephews ended up in Ramadi in the absolute worst year.

I didn't have the option to join. Frankly, I think you are bragging, and normally I would welcome it, but on this thread, to talk this way, is SHAMEFUL.

...the rest of the country where 99.99% of the military comes from, is not Manhattan south of 125th Steet or San Fransisco.

I live in Florida. I don't have a Manhattan perspective. Even most Republicans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. My views are not extreme, yours are.

Synova said...

Chuck, what was your additional question? Who served? I have served but not recently and not past E4.

Maybe you ought to just say what it is about Tito that you wanted to say?

jcr said...

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT

...and that would be why they've all voted to do so, right? Oh, wait.

edutcher said...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Does a judge have the power to revoke an executive order?

This is revealing. I'm wondering if Methadras' musing is reflective of what other Irrelephants think in daring to question whether an independent judiciary can rule on the constitutionality of executive acts.

There's your constituency for tyranny, right there.


Last I looked, it was the Demos passing legislation against the will of the people.

PS Notice Ritmo doesn't answer Methedras' question (could it be, despite his case of the galloping snides, he doesn't know?). Since an executive order covers areas not covered by legislation, but has the force of law, I would expect the Nine Black Dresses could rule on XOs. Anybody know for sure?

Methadras said...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Does a judge have the power to revoke an executive order?

This is revealing. I'm wondering if Methadras' musing is reflective of what other Irrelephants think in daring to question whether an independent judiciary can rule on the constitutionality of executive acts.

There's your constituency for tyranny, right there.


I'm not sure what extra details you are reading into my question. I simply asked a simple question. Can a judge revoke an executive order? I don't know, that's why I asked and considering that executive orders generally follow constitutional reasoning, then they would stand up to a constitutional test or at least advice and consent, no? Congress has had ample opportunity to overturn this executive order. So what is the problem that you have in me asking this question? Can you answer it?

madawaskan said...

If you can't tell your Tito from your Hoxha, and you're confusing your Croats with your Albanians all while missing an "a" when spelling your Balkans, well-

even Mort would be speechless.

garage mahal said...

The GOP is convenient, and the Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights.

I think to "actively" be fighting against something, you have to be active in fighting it. The ruling just came down today. What is he fighting?

It went up for vote a few weeks ago. It came out 56-43. Every single Republican voted against it, all but one democrat. Harry Reid for procedural purposes. It could have easily passed with just a few Republicans, the same Republicans that brought similar versions of the DREAM Act in previous congress sessions. But of course Republicans could never dream of giving a victory like this to democrats, and you know it. In fact I'm betting you're probably glad republicans voted against it just so you can bash democrats for it, even though every single democrat voted for the repeal in the senate.

Michael said...

Garage: Was the vote on the single issue of DADT? Could there have been other things contained in the bill? Controversial topics like this are often screened with other measures that will result in a negative vote by one side or the other and which can then be used for political purposes.

Fen said...

If that's right, then won't overturning this policy simply revert everything back to the UCMJ's much less lenient position?

Yes.

Shouldn't we change the UCMJ first?

No. The military routintely discriminates based on gender, age, height, weight, eyesight, medical condition, marital status, etc.

Fen said...

cut its military spending. A soldier shortage should be the last thing we are worrying about.

Not true. The ones we have now are approaching burnout. We'll see an exodus of combat vets from victor units again, as we did after the first gulf war.

Thats a HUGE hit on our effectiveness. It so counter-intuitive that, once we finally get a good crop of combat tested vets, we set up conditions that run them off.

Trooper York said...

I think gays should be allowed to serve in the military but there should be a constituional amendment to ban them from designing women's clothing.

MayBee said...

The repeal of DADT was lumped in with the DREAM act on a military spending bill.

El Pollo Real said...

Thats a HUGE hit on our effectiveness.

I thought that was every Sullivanist's goal?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

PS Notice Ritmo doesn't answer Methedras' question (could it be, despite his case of the galloping snides, he doesn't know?). Since an executive order covers areas not covered by legislation, but has the force of law, I would expect the Nine Black Dresses could rule on XOs. Anybody know for sure?

Hello. The chief executive, as chief enforcer of the law, is subject to all kinds of judicial scrutiny when it comes to the constitutionality of his acts - whether issued as executive orders or otherwise.

Being the chief executive is not some kind of shield against allowing the courts to rule on the constitutionality, let alone the legality, of your acts.

One would think this would be basic civics 101, but I guess the idea of the "unitary executive" has either rotted this culture to the core or appealed to the party of chief lawbreaker Richard Nixon in ways that most tyrants could only dream of.

garage mahal said...

The repeal of DADT was lumped in with the DREAM act on a military spending bill.

And?

Cedarford said...

Jason the commentator - "Two nephews ended up in Ramadi in the absolute worst year.

I didn't have the option to join. Frankly, I think you are bragging, and normally I would welcome it, but on this thread, to talk this way, is SHAMEFUL....

==================
Go fuck yourself, salami smoker.
One was Army artillery out of Ft Carson, the other a medic out of Ft Hood. The 1st was supposed to be in Korea on 155s, ended up doing door to door raids in Ramadi. A lot of fighting. And killing. Left when one of his eardrums was blown out by a suicide car driver trying to deliver a bomb on his position. The medic nephew, if you believe in PTS, which I don't much..had one nightmare month at a different FOB on the outskirts of Ramadi.

Their duty is not mine...so there is no "bragging" involved. Just pride they served and did top notch jobs.

As for "not having an option to join", sure you did, if you could walk without mincing your way along. I served with gays, they were discrete and didn't push it and in turn, they had their back covered. Including by me when an unsat evangelical soldier I was stuck with, got a bug up his ass about "homos" in another unit. Sargeant's reaction, which I heartily endorsed, was to tell the soldier to shut the fuck up, worry about doing his own job - which he at the time sucked at..

Sorry, but if you think the military will gain more from what they lose in recruiting - well, you never served and don't know what you are talking about. And if anything, the gay and Latin soldiers serving are even more "homophobic" than whites.

We understand that the military is a special stituation, and exempt from Fed laws covering other groups "rights" under ADA, elderly job discrimination, Fed civil service rules, women in infantry combat spots, and a host of other "rights violations" that like homosexual rights, are no where in the Constitution save in new hidden words judicial activists add.

And you would not want to be anywhere near Ramadi in 2006.

John Lynch said...

This is what drove Sullivan over the edge last time. Maybe it will happen again.

I don't understand this about the courts: how is a law that's been in place for 16 years suddenly unconstitutional? It wasn't before? What has changed?

If society at large has changed, doesn't that mean elected representatives would change the law to fit the new public consensus?

Yeah, the Civil Rights era had a lot of help from the courts. But what really happened was a struggle between the federal and state governments. That was legislative.

So, again, what's changed in 16 years to make these laws unconstitutional? If they were all along, then why did they survive this long?

Bob From Ohio said...

"It went up for vote a few weeks ago."

September, 2010.

Why not May, 2009 or September 2009 or even May 2010?

Not a straight (so to speak) repeal either. A bill that was coupled with things that due to the major a** kicking about to come, was guaranteed not to get GOP votes.

If it was just a straight repeal, then Brown and Snowe and Collins at least would have sided with the Dems. That would have been enough.

The bill was designed to fail. It was just rube bait.

I didn't expect you to fall for it.

John Lynch said...

Yeah, I have to agree that if the Democrats had wanted to leave a real Civil Rights legacy in regard to gay Americans, they blew it.

There isn't going to be another opportunity for government-mandated pro-gay legislation until at least 2013.

It's a real opener for a lot of people, but was totally predictable. I think the problem with so many years in the wilderness is that the Democratic coalition really didn't understand that its own contradictions would force some hard choices when power came their way again. You can't make everyone happy, but even so a lot of promises were made that will not be delivered (wait a year or so to see how this plays out for the Republicans that have recently promised so much.)

I think the resulting disillusionment is good for everyone. People shouldn't identify with political parties. They are competitors for our votes, not teams that we join. A healthy dose of cynicism is a good thing.

MayBee said...

And?

People were asking.

Methadras said...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...Hello. The chief executive, as chief enforcer of the law, is subject to all kinds of judicial scrutiny when it comes to the constitutionality of his acts - whether issued as executive orders or otherwise.

Being the chief executive is not some kind of shield against allowing the courts to rule on the constitutionality, let alone the legality, of your acts.

One would think this would be basic civics 101, but I guess the idea of the "unitary executive" has either rotted this culture to the core or appealed to the party of chief lawbreaker Richard Nixon in ways that most tyrants could only dream of.


We know who and what the Chief Executive is and does, dumbfuck. The question still remains, which in your cavernous use of windage, again, you still haven't answered the primary question. Can a judge revoked/overturn an executive order? Not a hard question to answer, I don't think. Of course it is for you because you want to pretend you are the smartest guy in the room. And I'll now compound on the original question with another question. If this executive order has been in place for as long as it has and has undergone the constitutional scrutiny in its inception, then why after 17 years is it all of a sudden unconstitutional?

Methadras said...

John Lynch said...

Yeah, I have to agree that if the Democrats had wanted to leave a real Civil Rights legacy in regard to gay Americans, they blew it.

There isn't going to be another opportunity for government-mandated pro-gay legislation until at least 2013.

It's a real opener for a lot of people, but was totally predictable. I think the problem with so many years in the wilderness is that the Democratic coalition really didn't understand that its own contradictions would force some hard choices when power came their way again. You can't make everyone happy, but even so a lot of promises were made that will not be delivered (wait a year or so to see how this plays out for the Republicans that have recently promised so much.)

I think the resulting disillusionment is good for everyone. People shouldn't identify with political parties. They are competitors for our votes, not teams that we join. A healthy dose of cynicism is a good thing.


All this proves is that being a leftard is not a hard thing to be. Just be for everything for everyone. How hard is that to do? That's the level of ideology you are dealing with. Want homosexuality flaunted openly in all venues of society including the military? Okay. Want your government to become the sole provider for all goods and services? Okay. Want open border and the loss of your national identity? Okay. Want all workers to be unionized? Okay. The list will get quite long. Leftism is the ideology of children. Made up by children in adult bodies, with child like fantasy Utopian Popsicle dreams where anything is permissible and wanton. In the US they are called progressives. Everywhere else they are socialists. Why is this decision anything new? Democrat leftard positions are catching up to them. They are contradictory and cannibalizing and in the face of political realities they don't hold water under any circumstances. They now this and don't care and continue to spread lies while conservatives end up being the whipping posts for those lies.

Where is the justification for allowing homosexuals to serve openly? I don't see one now and didn't see one before DADT was enacted by executive order.

Mark said...

The fact that the legislation to repeal DADT was piggy-backed onto the DREAM Act is proof that the Democrats aren't serious about ending it. DREAM was guaranteed to fail; hence, attach the thing you want to SAY you support, without actually supporting it.

Sort of like handing the drowning kid an anchor, and saying "SWIM!"

Eric said...

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT

I doubt it. Oh, they say they do. But if they repeal DADT they lose the issue. Same with Republicans and abortion. There are a few who truly want to move the ball, but most of them view the issue as a fund raising opportunity.

Chase said...

Jason:

Are seriously equating the experience of college with the experience of the military?

Seriously? Do you not really get this? I take it you didn't serve in the military, though I could be wrong. Just asking because I want to know what I'm dealing with.

Do you edit before you press "Publish Your Comment"?

Montagne Montaigne said...

Chilling!

Of course it's because they have to, to defend the laws passed by congress. Cause thats, ya know. Our system of government.

One second it's constitution constitution constitution. The next you should throw out the constitution because I don't like it. And this... FROM A LAW PERFESSOR!

This whole thing is just na-na-na-boo-boo. Althouse doesn't give a shit about gays in the military one way or the other, apparently.

Montagne Montaigne said...

I was talking about the breathless update, "Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights."

Actively fighting. Cause OBAMA really hates gays, cause of Kenya. The rest is all just flim flammery to appease the enormous gay vote and donors. Cause Obama has no souuuuul.

former law student said...

The fact that the legislation to repeal DADT was piggy-backed onto the DREAM Act is proof that the Democrats aren't serious about ending it.

More accurately said, the DREAM act was piggy backed onto the repeal of DADT. But the piggybacking doesn't show up on thomas.loc.gov that I can find. How can a bill be amended without a vote?

Alex said...

God I'm so sick of seeing Obama's uppity mug in my face all the time. Can't he go back to Harvard?

wind.rider said...

I think the judge is probably one of the first USG officials to actually get this one right. But that's just my opinion - as I haven't dissected her legal argument in the ruling.

Skippy gets an 'F' for talking a big game, but only producing a lot of noise signifying nothing. He's been relentless on the issues near and dear to him, on the incidentals, not so much. Even as Chief Executive and C in C of the military, this is NOT one he can really do anything except lobby for, as it is a Congressional 'to do' item. Oh, and yeah, civilians regularly do tell the military 'what to do'. It's called 'civilian control of the military' - you may have heard of it.

And yes, a single individual, in the form of a federal judge, can and IS EXPECTED TO render judgements and opinions on Constitutional issues, which appears, by the reportage I've seen, the basis for her ruling.

The courts really are the only venue this policy will get an airing in - Congress is far too conflicted and/or inept to deal with it. The Dems may talk a good game, but when you pull a Harry, and allow a favored issue to be loaded down with a poison pill (the DREAM Act), you really have to question their desire to 'do' something, other than come up with something else to whine and point at the other party about.

There might be enough R votes to get it through, but not likely after November when the political class gets a smack around for being idiots. Many of the new incoming R's will be beholden (and very afraid of) the SoCon right, so it's probably an accurate assessment this issue is a dead letter through the legislative branch.

For disclosure, the following opinion on the issue is from a hetero with 24 years of active duty service in the USAF. (see next - damned 4,096 char limit!)

wind.rider said...

part II

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

wind.rider said...

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

wind.rider said...

part II

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

wind.rider said...

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

wind.rider said...

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

wind.rider said...

part II

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

wind.rider said...

part II

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

opfor311 said...

I'm surprised to find out that both Senators from Arkansas are Republican now. Senators Lincoln and Pryor voted againt the Defense Appropriation Bill with the repeal of DADT and the Dream Act riders. Senator Reid was the third Democrat who voted against it, but that was just a procedural move.

Fen said...

the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay.

I'm sorry, but thats not even what we consider a victor unit. Besides, the Air guys always end up in some hotel, while the rest of us are stacked in berths or sleeping 12 to each side in a tent.

You guys dont deal with the harshness of field life and the lack privacy to the degree that infantry does.

You're not to be considered an authority on small unit cohesion.

Fen said...

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged

And this is such bullshit that I now doubt your claim to be former military. Anyone with just a hint of experience on the issue would know its about privacy, not intolerance or "hatred" of gays.

Get back to me when the military has unisex squadbays and berthing...

Fen said...

What's a "squadbay" ?, says the Airman.

madawaskan said...

Forward air controllers.

Probably not the time or place for the pink underwear joke, I'm just sayin'.

**********************

opfor311 said...

Gotta agree with Fen. I grew up around the Air Force (Dad was in for 20 years), and enlisted in the Army. Totally different lifestyles, unless you are talking Forward Air Controllers or PJ's. But Army life in the field even in the Combat Service Support units (such as Intel) is very close, with little or no privacy. From my time in the 101st in the Gulf War, I can assure you that eliminating DADT WILL affect unit cohesion.

madawaskan said...

I say let Obama twist.

What's interesting is why he is doing what he is doing, if Althouse is correct here:

Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights.

Haven't got it quite figured out.

El Pollo Real said...

wind.rider

distill your arguments, please

wv= "inanaimi" (I swear it's soundind Hawaiian)

Methadras said...

@ wind.rider, the fact that you are even trying to articulate your position on DADT only goes to show how divisive it really is, not from the standpoint of homosexuals serving, but trying to have them serve openly. If you have to make the kind of argument that you are making, then it's better to not have homosexuals serve openly at all.

Palladian said...

I didn't know our soldiers were such pussies that they'd start fucking up their duties and have hissy fits just because their gay brothers-and-sisters-in-arms don't have to conceal, lie and deny anymore. Go figure... all the Marines and soldiers in my family and that I have known must have been made of stronger stuff that today's military personnel...

Or maybe it's really that all you armchair generals, ee-van-jellicles and other assorted miscreants don't actually understand the strength and resilience of our military and how this won't affect our troops one damn bit, except maybe to encourage a few good men and women who would have otherwise passed up the opportunity to serve their country.

I'd actually prefer that everyone shut up about their personal relationships, sexual conquests and love interests while in the work environment (including the military), gays and straights alike. But this isn't an ideal world we live in.

Now, can we move on to more important things, like saving our economy from the Democrats?

rsb said...

Alex said..."God I'm so sick of seeing Obama's uppity mug in my face all the time. Can't he go back to Harvard"?

It is fun to see racists squirm.

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: Are seriously equating the experience of college with the experience of the military?

Dude, get this in your head: gays can serve openly almost everywhere in society other than the military. You said Evangelicals will leave the military if gays are allowed to serve openly there, so where are Evangelicals going to go?

You have to defend YOUR position. You are the one making crazy statements.

Whiskey Jim said...

If judge deprive the military of their surveys on their populace (which should have been accomplished a long time ago), the people of their right to debate, and the Congress of their vote, like they did Roe vs. Wade, they deserve to be kicked off the court.

It would not be the first time.

And for the record, I have no real preference either way. But we are talking about a fundamental breach of the judiciary here.

Jason said...

Palladian:

Or maybe it's really that all you armchair generals, ee-van-jellicles and other assorted miscreants don't actually understand the strength and resilience of our military and how this won't affect our troops one damn bit, except maybe to encourage a few good men and women who would have otherwise passed up the opportunity to serve their country.

If you took a poll today of active military members and asked what they wanted, I don't think you'd like the results.

Or are they ignorant of military affairs, too?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Whiskey Jim:But we are talking about a fundamental breach of the judiciary here.

No we're not. This type of case is exactly what the judiciary is for.

There are many minorities on all sorts of different subjects in this country (not just sexuality) and the only reason we agree to abide by the rule of the majority is because we know we have certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution that the majority cannot take away from us. When the majority disrespects those rights we can turn to the judiciary for relief.

The judiciary's job is to restore the order our Founding Father's set up when the majority tries to destroy it. That seems to be what is being done.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason :If you took a poll today of active military members

It's funny how supporters of DADT will say the military isn't a Democracy, and also ask you to imagine what the soldiers think.

But you know what? America has a constitutional government and the military not only protects the constitution, but has to abide by it!

Soldiers shouldn't get "everything they want" without restraint any more than a majority of Americans. This isn't a dictatorship or even a nation of majority rule. We have rights guaranteed by the constitution which the majority has to respect.

AllenS said...

I'd like to see a federal judge declare tenure unconstitutional.

I also served. When I hear other people say that they served with all of these gays, I'm left to wonder, things sure must have changed since I was in.

Jason said...

It's funny how supporters of DADT will say the military isn't a Democracy, and also ask you to imagine what the soldiers think.

And you think it's irrelevant?

Then why do you folks keep appealing to some mystery soldier whom you never name saying there are all these gay people in the service and there's never ever a problem?

Palladian was the first to appeal to popular sentiment in the ranks here. I'm just calling him out on the sloppy reasoning.

I mean, it doesn't even rise to arguendo ad populum. He's just hinting at arguendo ad populum hoping nobody notices that the populum he's trying to invent isn't there.

LarsPorsena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LarsPorsena said...

@AllenS:

"I also served. When I hear other people say that they served with all of these gays, I'm left to wonder, things sure must have changed since I was in."

That goes for me too. The ardor for the repeal of DADT is in inverse proportion to time actually served. Those who have never been in are red hot for it;those who have spent time in a barracks squad bay not so much. I wonder why that is?

AllenS said...

Lars,

I served with some pretty hard men. I think if anyone had declared that they were gay, they would have regretted it.

Sixty Grit said...

Muslims hate gays - what Omongrel is doing is perfectly in keeping with his muslim faith.

LarsPorsena said...

"Lars,

I served with some pretty hard men. I think if anyone had declared that they were gay, they would have regretted it."

I think a lot of the opponents of DADT think that life in the military is just "The Real World" with camouflage and boots.

AllenS said...

Something else just occurred to me about when I was in. I was drafted in June 1966. Back then, you had to take a physical to determine your fitness to serve. How many young men, straight or homo (the term gay, was not used back then), said they were homosexual to get out of the service? I'll bet a lot did.

AllenS said...

Question. Is there any statistics on the breakdown of men and women discharged under DADT? How many of those decided that they wanted out of the service, so they proclaimed that there were gay so they could be discharged? Repealing DADT would take away that option of an early release.

LarsPorsena said...

Now , to get out, the malingerers do TELL (i.e., announce that they are homosexual) to get a discharge.

In one era it was used to stay out.
Now it's used to get out.

jr565 said...

And now they appeal ruling preventing govt from banning same sex marriages:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

Hope and change. Hope and change.

A.W. said...

Ann

i can't watch the video now, but have you considered that maybe Obama sees it like this.

1) congress has the power to pass DADT.

2) congress shouldn't have done it, and should repeal the law.

Aren't those wholly consistent positions--to say the constitution offers little protections to gay rights, but it is still good policy to offer it legislatively?

jr565 said...

Palladian wrote:
I'd actually prefer that everyone shut up about their personal relationships, sexual conquests and love interests while in the work environment (including the military), gays and straights alike. But this isn't an ideal world we live in.


It sounds like you're advocating DADT actually.

Eric said...

What "right?" What "right" is being denied by DADT? The right to be in the military and be openly gay. Seriously, that's a right?

jr565 said...

Jason (the commenter wrote)
It's funny how supporters of DADT will say the military isn't a Democracy, and also ask you to imagine what the soldiers think.

But you know what? America has a constitutional government and the military not only protects the constitution, but has to abide by it!


I think that the military should have coed barracks and bathrooms. Do you have a problem with that? If women are taking a shower and men ogle them they should suck it up, knowing that there is no such thing as separation of genders and all are equal and thus there is no reason to be offended. Besides, those men who would ogle women sexually are a distinct minority. The vast majority will look at women asexually as comrades in arms, and have no sexual thought about their glistening bodies and pert breasts. Why ruin a coed army because of a few bad apples who can't keep their sexual thoughts to themselves?

Jenner said...

What happens if I don't want to tell?

Does your 1st Amendment right to free speech trump my 5th Amendment right to privacy?

Over 80% of discharges due to homsexuality arise from people self-reporting.

Over 98% of those discharges are honorable.

AllenS said...

Jenner,

Where did you get that information?

Jenner said...

AllenS,

That info comes from page 6 of the July 22, 2009 Congressional Reserach Service document "Homosexuals and the U.S. Military: Current Issues."

You can find it at: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30113_20090722.pdf

AllenS said...

Thanks, Jenner. My assumptions were correct. There ain't that many homos in the services.

Chase said...

I don't have to defend here Jason - I'm giving you information about what is already taking place.

You have zero concept of what the military is about even though it protects your freedom to be a clueless thankless asshole.

Go fuck some guy and shut your ignorant yap.

Chase said...

Palladian, you called my mother and father, 2 of my brothers, 13 of my close relatives, and now my son - all Marines - "pussies". You can include the Commandant of the US Marine Corps and the 2 relatives of mine who died in Iraq so you can have your freedom to be and live however you want here.

I take back evey good thing I've said about you here.

You are a clueless, thankless, selfish fuck.

AllenS said...

Althouse,

All gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody is taking their rights away.

former law student said...

What surprises me most about this thread is our hostess's seeming insistence that the Obama administration pick and choose which statutes to enforce.

Who should argue for DADT, if not the administration? The faculty of Ave Maria and Regent law schools?

Every election we are treated to the spectacle of DA and Attorney General candidates who assure us that even though they are personally against the death penalty, they will still ask for it when appropriate. Should these people, too, be conscientious objectors?

Jenner said...

The Westboro Baptist Church case may be quite informative as to the outcome of this issue. That case deals with Free Speech v. Privacy. Maybe the key to DADT is already in the highest court?

former law student said...

Another question: Let's say the military chooses to ignore Judge Phillips. How can she enforce her ruling?

Big Mike said...

@FLS, every once in a while your comments make you out to be a thoughtful person. Please stop!

At any rate there is an interesting precedent. When Chief Justice Taney (he of the Dred Scott decision, but I'm sure you knew that) ruled that Lincoln could not by himself suspend habeus corpus because suspension of habeus corpus was in Article I, which deals with the legislative branch (despite Biden's assertion to the contrary in his debate with Sarah Palin). Lincoln ignored Taney because he commanded the army and Taney commanded no troops.

DaveW said...

Sullivan:

Yes, the GOP is the main party to blame.

DADT was instituted by Clinton and Obama promised to change the policy but has failed to do so.

Yet for Sullivan the GOP is "the main party to blame".

This stuff amazes me sometimes. Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, an enormous majority in the House and a sitting President that promised to do away with DADT.

Yet for Sullivan, that rock-ribbed conservative and level headed thinker, the GOP is mainly to blame.

jr565 said...

Would women like to have men ogle them while they take showers? Some might, but a lot more might view such an environment as hostile. And many men WOULD look at women sexually if given the oppportunity.
With that being said, don't proponents of gays serving openly in the military not realize that it sets up that very same hostile environment for those serving with gays who aren't gay? This is not to say that all gay men are going to be jacking off watching the handsome navy guy taking a shower. But it's a potentially hostile environment. And the military would not allow women to go through it, and so separate them from the men so as to not cause said problems to occur. They also don't want enlisted men to be fraterinizing with each other sexually, as it is disruptive of a units morale and can cause a lot of problems. Separating out the sexes thus spares the military the probem of having to deal with these problematic relationships.
Unless gay men are going to live with women and gay women are going to live with men on the barracks you're going to have problems where people are going to be put in a situation where they feel they are not comfortorable in their unit,because of unwanted attention from someone who might view them sexually OR gays will live together separately and then view each other sexually and potentially be copulating in the barracks.
THis is not an indictment of gays per se either. Straight men are as guilty of this as gays. Which is why they are separated from women. Which is also why almost no one wants to go to the bathroom in a unisex bathroom. Are women going to feel comfortorable taking a crap in a bathroom with guys walking in and out of it? Guys are probably more accomodating but that's because they have less shame, and also probably want to get a peek at women in the stalls. But if there were unisex bathrooms many people would cease using public restrooms as its simply too uncomfortorable to go to the bathroom with someone of the opposite gender in the same room. It's a similar principle as having an openly gay military.

Big Mike said...

@jr565, I recollect from my days as a Vietnam-era draftee overhearing two straight WACs describe their discomfort at being spied upon by lesbian barracks-mates. I assume that hasn't changed in the intervening 40 years, and I think it's not merely straight men (a particular boogeyman for leftists) but female enlisted personnel who will also find themselves in a hostile situation.

DADT has worked out pretty well, better than I had expected when it was first promulgated. What is it about leftists that if it ain't broke, they feel an urgent need to "fix" it until it is broken?

After all, it's not as though Andrew Sullivan plans to enlist (or could make it through boot camp if he did).

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
c3 said...

I'm glad the culture wars are over.

kimsch said...

When I was in the Army in Germany late '80s the 2nd floor bathroom was designated unisex because there weren't many women in the barracks and the offices were also on that floor.

As to the toilets, men were forbidden from using the urinals, they had to use stalls. The showers were designated for use by the different sexes at different times and the door locked from the inside.

I never had a problem using that bathroom even though a man might be in the next stall. There's some privacy in a stall and I never worried that someone might peek over top or from under.

The worst was drips and splashes on the toilets... But I deal with that at home with my husband and sons.

wv: dozyg

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 213   Newer› Newest»