RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.
Phillips said the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.
The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.
Government lawyers argued Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and the issue should be decided by Congress.
The injunction was sought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members.
Government lawyers argued that Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and Congress should decide the policy’s fate.
The U.S. House voted in May to repeal the policy, and the Senate is expected to address the issue this summer.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.
Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.
Attorney Dan Woods, who represents the group, contended in closing arguments of the nonjury trial that the policy violates gay military members’ rights to free speech, due process and open association.
He also argued that the policy damages the military by forcing it to reject talented people as the country struggles to find recruits in the midst of a war.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paul G. Freeborne argued that the policy debate is political and the issue should be decided by Congress rather than in court.
Six military officers who were discharged under the policy testified during the trial. A decorated Air Force officer testified that he was let go after his peers snooped through his personal e-mail in Iraq.
Lawyers also submitted remarks by Obama stating “don’t ask, don’t tell” weakens national security.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (111)
benrush
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:12am@Deutscher . Methinks thou dost not think rationally, but emotively.
Report Post »ThinksTwice
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:09amIf homosexuals are allowed to live with ‘straight’ soldiers, where the homosexuals view ‘straight’ soldiers as potential sexual partners, what’s the point of separating male and female soldiers?
Homosexuality is a deviant behavior which should be kept out of the military altogether. Soldiers have enough to deal with without worrying about unwanted attention.
Report Post »Donald30
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:08amI believe we are sheep that have been lead by wolves…..A wolf can only hide for so long before his teeth are shown………I think writing down the constitution will help weed out these wolves and bring a new moral to the stage…..Obama’s teeth shown up and 3/4 of the country are screaming cause its Dinner time, Only a Reagan can save us now and I hope GOD puts Reagan in someone descent.
Report Post »benrush
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:05amThis is subversion of the family unit. Who would want to subvert the family unit other than communists and socialists operating outside and inside the US to bring her down. The family is how prosperity is transferred to individuals, communist ideologues detest and despise freedom and prosperity and it is a major endeavor on their part to bring down the family, the individual, and the wealth of the nation.
All this talk about tolerance is to hypnotize you into accepting dubious principles and acting upon them as if they had real merit, and to gain your confidence in their agenda despite their underlying motives. Just another tool they use to divide – disunite, and conquer.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 5:11amGo back and look at the arguments against intergrating the military. It was pretty much the same, we don’t want to shower/eat/sleep with them. The men and women of the military did a fine job of dealing with that change. The idea that a soldier can put his life on the line in combat, but can’t fight off the advances of a fellow soldier is laughable.
@PROSPERO. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. ;-)
Report Post »Baron
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:24amIn addition to my last post. I have no desire to know anyones sexual preference. Why is so important for homosexuals to broadcast thiers. Don‘t ask Don’t tell seems to be working. Leave well enough alone. Another analogy is “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.”
Report Post »Baron
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:12amAll legalities aside.
Report Post »I myself being part of the military don’t want to know if you are gay. And you don‘t need to know if I’m heterosexual.
Keep your sexual preferences to yourself and we will get along just fine. It would definately be a distraction to openly know of anothers homosexual tendencies.
Optimurphprime
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:01amWhat I haven’t heard said yet, is that sodomy is illegal under the UCMJ. Sodomy is defined under military as anything other than ******* intercourse and is punishable by court marshal and can include separation from active duty. So regardless of the don’t ask policy, homosexuals can still be kicked out of the military.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:45amNsblues writes: “Homosexuality has zero to do with pedophilia. Most pedophiles are married men.”
I think everyone realizes that Catholic clergy do not marry, and yet appear to have a propensity for small boys. The research I’m familiar with suggests that homosexuals have a significantly greater propensity for pedophilia than the general population, based on a study of convicted pedophiles. About 500% greater….
As for your “married men” statistic, it is inappropriate and misleading on its face. Since only 3% of Americans are gay, the remaining 97% could have the merest fraction of tendency to pedophilia, yet produce larger absolute numbers. This should be very clear to anyone with a grasp of elementary school arithmetic.
Report Post »diablosho
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:24amWell, nsblues could still be right. While I have pretty much agreed with everything you’ve said, I have to point out, I am Catholic. And no, I‘m not going to say I’m offended, just wanted to throw that out there. But anyways, he said most pedophiles are married men, and you threw out Catholic clergy. But no one said Catholic clergy make up the majority of pedophiles. Therefore, most pedophiles could, in fact, still be married men, with a minority of the pedophiles being Catholic clergy. I still don’t agree with this gays in the military thing though.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:35amYour confusion is understandable. My original post, to which Nsblue replied, contained this passage:
Prospero wrote: “I thought the Catholic Church had already fully illustrated the predictable consequences of opening your arms to homosexuals.”
Unfortunately, my reply to Nsblue is caught in some manner of endless “moderation” loop probably due to a bug in the blog, so I had to restate it as a new post….and incomplete in context.
I have no desire to impugn Catholics, only to point out that their inclusiveness has led to undesired consequences. I believe the Pope is struggling to rectify the situation.
My understanding is that American Bishops and Seminaries are revoltingly PC these days. It‘s unfortunate that they haven’t taken a stronger stand in the definition of marriage debate. Fortunately, the Mormons have been most exceptionally upright on this matter, and have really taken it on the chin for the rest of us.
I hope my Lutheran leaders, and your Catholic leaders, grow a pair and follow their example.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:48amDiablosho writes: “Therefore, most pedophiles could, in fact, still be married men”
I’m sure they are. That’s because 97% of the population is heterosexual, of course. Only 3% of the population is gay, so examing the absolute number of married men that are pedophiles says nothing about the inclination for pedophilia among gays.
Gays could be ten times as likely, and still there’d be more heterosexual pedophiles, by virtue of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are hetero.
In fact, research of convicted pedophiles demonstrates that gays are about 5 times as likely to engage in pedophilia.
Nshope was engaging in a deception on this matter, by employing absolute numbers instead of a per capita analysis.
Report Post »diablosho
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 8:08amCouldn’t agree more. We need to get back to the values of past generations. I could only imagine what my grandfather would say today. Embarassing how as a country we have ruined the greatest gift God has ever given the world…the USA. I wonder what the American Dream is today?
Report Post »nsblues
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 7:13pmWith all-due respect. As someone who grew up in the Catholic church and who studied theology at the graduate level at a catholic university that contained a monastery… you don’t have a clue what you are talking about in regards to the catholic church.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:34amparents need to start parenting this myth that “your born gay” is stupid. liberal ‘parenting’ is an idiosyncrasy and is a large promotion to the gay issue being gay is a environmental affect due to poor parenting and affiliations with liberal views starting at any age. mommies babying little jonny and susy and a lack of ethics and religion in there upbringing.
now before you start crying you liberal nut cases i dont really care who you sleep with in your own home its none of my business……….just keep your dam mouths shut and keep it to yourselves
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:53amWhat arouses someone’s libido, doesn’t hold my interest. It could be someone running chalk over a blackboard. (Hat tip to Glenn Beck)
I just want to say to Gays and Lesbians – Hey, I don’t care what your sexual preference is. It doesn’t matter to me. I just hope that you joined the armed services to keep the USA, free.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:09amDiane writes: “What arouses someone’s libido, doesn’t hold my interest.”
So you’re uninterested if people consummate their arousal by farm animals, or a father consummates his arousal for his children, stuff like that?
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 5:29amOh Prospero, of course I don’t believe that Fathers should sexually abuse their children.
None of this “screw whatever you want” is acceptable to me. I was just pointing out that a male having sex with male isn’t in the natural order of human biology.
Having two “plugs” without a “socket” really doesn’t work.
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:29amWill there be numerous lawsuits – that Sarge is picking on me because I’m openly gay?
Also, someone’s sexual preference is not something that I think about very much … not at all, really … about.
Homosexuals want validation from heterosexuals that their life style is just as “apple pie” as anyone’s else – except biology keeps getting in the way.
Damn that biology!
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:33amPrecisely. I think it’s high time everyone quit being intimidated by Political Correctness, and just point out the obvious.
To whit, fine, you’re a sexual deviant. We don’t much approve, but fine. Don’t expect to join the service, or open a daycare, however….
Report Post »umrebel1991
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:26amWhile I do believe the Bible and think homosexuality is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, I don’t believe it should be used to discriminate.
They have a right just like I do and anyone does to serve and die for this country and become one of Americas bravest and finest.
I have a great respect for anyone who can willingly lay down their lives for millions of people they have never met and will never see. These people are the true heroes and always have been of this nation. So, why deny a person so willing to do so the right to do this? It is definitely unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:34amNobody has a right to join the military.
Report Post »Bub
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:09amThe law is unconstitutional, however, my question is-
Report Post »Where are gays to be quartered? Is a gay man, for example, to be quartered with the men when that goes against the very reason the men and women are separated? He can’t be quartered with the women, because the heterosexual women would be uncomfortable. And you can’t just have quarters for homosexuals for the same reason men and women are separated. Are we to give each homosexual their own quarters? What is the answer?
Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:21amI disagree. This isn’t an issue of Constitutional rights, I’m afraid. Nobody has a right to join the military in the first instance.
It is up to the Congress to establish the rules of fitness and qualification for military service, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14.
Report Post »umrebel1991
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:31am-Prospero.
Unless I am mistaken (which I’m not being a history major) Article 1 is a part of the Constitution. This clearly defines it as a constitutional right being governed by our Congress. And according to the 14th Amendment of the constitution EVERYONE has equal rights under the law, including homosexuals. So, your logic is faulty at best. Even your own argument admits that it is constitutional. So make sure you know your laws and what an Article of the CONSTITUTION is before you make another stupid post like this one.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:41amThe Constitution does not establish rights, it enumerates the powers of the Federal Government.
Article 1, Section 8 enumerates all the powers of the Congress. Clause 14 enumerates their right to establish the rules for the military.
The rest of your post is too incoherent for me to properly understand your point. For instance, it does not follow that since article 1 is a part of the Constutiton, that gays have a right to join the military. Especially considering that nobody has such a right.
Everyone has an opportunity to apply for military service, nobody has a right to actually serve. You can be discharged, for instance, for being overweight. Thus, fat people cannot serve.
The behavior of overeating precludes one from service, the behavior of homosexuality likewise.
Report Post »AirFiero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:06am“Don’t kiss, don’t tell”
Report Post »RUKiddingMe
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:04amWhen and if the “Don’t Ask, Don;t Tell” policy it done away with hopefully it will allow for more heterosexuals to finally claim decrimination. If you allow openly gay men to serve, eat, sleep, and shower together and allow openly gay women to serve, eat, sleep and shower together THEN openly heterosexuals should be allowed to serve, eat, sleep, and shower together. Come on people….Service members are adults and should be allowed to act like consenting adults. Just don’t exculde heteros!
Report Post »Bertss1
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 9:42amObviously you have never had the honor of serving this great nation. When you take the oath to serve, you have now agreed to abide by a different set of laws. You swear to abide the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. You no longer fall under the bill of rights. This is needed to fulfill the need for a cohesive unit. Don’t ask, don’t tell barely made it tolerable.
Report Post »I was served on board an Aircraft Carrier. Fully loaded out for deployment, over 5000 personnel. Sleeping quarters were 50 – 80 man bunk rooms. Tell me how you propose an openly gay person serving onboard this ship?
basskids
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:30amThis is a serious distraction to our military. Most of the guys I know in the Marines and Army are a pretty macho, warrior-like bunch; which is what I want and respect in a soldier. They need to concentrate on their work at hand. What they don’t need is to sleep with one eye open and wonder if their squad mates are going to ask them on a date or look a little too long at them in the shower. Just being blunt and not attempting to be politically correct, because I’m sick of 800 lbs elephants in the room that few people want to acknowledge.
Report Post »Zombee
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:26amCohesion is the indispensable glue that holds units together. It’s the single most important factor in a unit’s ability to succeed on the battlefield. In 1993, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell told Congress: To win wars, we create cohesive teams of warriors who will bond so tightly that they are prepared to go into battle and give their lives if necessary for the accomplishment of the mission. … We cannot allow anything to happen which would disrupt that feeling of cohesion within the force.
The military has successfully put soldiers from very diverse backgrounds into long term close quarters situations. Behavior, especially sexual behavior that deviates from the norm, undercuts the cohesion of the group. Therefore, most military professionals consider such behavior detrimental to the development and maintenance of cohesive units.
Sexual tensions and sex-based favoritism in intimate settings destroy cohesion, whether they involve opposite- or same-sex attraction. If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals. Protecting privacy in a military with open homosexuality would necessitate recognizing essentially four sexes and would severely disrupt units.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:28amMost assuredly. And it’s nonsensical to create that sort of disorder to appease a tiny fringe of the population, particularly considering that the behavior they wish overlooked is clearly aberrant.
Report Post »Bub
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:13amYou would have 4 distinguishments, however, it would come down to giving each homosexual their own quarters. And then, you would have heterosexuals wanting the same privacy on the lines of discrimination. It becomes a mess.
Report Post »nsblues
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:04amI think its time to move past DADT and allow gays to serve openly. The idea or orgy’s and such is just ridiculous. Military rules on fraternization would still apply. Like any company the military should be seeking out the best and brightest and excluding someone based on sexuality hurts the military.
As for the judiciary… I’m bothered that a court lower than the supreme court is making decisions that affect the entire military.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:11amYour response leads me to believe you are just another liberal troll here to stir up trouble….
I think it’s up to the military commanders to determine what best serves the military, not a bunch of libertine civilians. And I certainly hope the Congress someday remembers that it serves as the check against Judicial overeach.
Hopefully they will begin removing moral decisions from the Court’s jurisdiction, as is their right and responsibility…..their duty, as a matter of fact.
Report Post »ozz
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:11amYour argument is flawed. The 3% of the talent pool is not excluded. They are simply not allowed to make public what belongs private. In fact their privacy is protected by DADT. Further more what about the loss of over 3% of the talent pool that are straight that may not join due to not liking the idea of sharing showers bunks or a fox hole with homosexual.
Report Post »bnjmnwst
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:02amI’m a little bit confused. I thought the military disallowed service by openly gay members before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I thought Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, was to protect gay members who wished to serve from prying superiors or crusaders within the military. Otherwise, I can’t imagine why it would have ever been enacted. I vaguely remember when it was enacted, and I could have sworn there was already prohibition of service by openly gay servicemembers, and this law was created to allow them to continue to serve unmolested. Is that incorrect? Were gay members allowed to serve openly previously? Wouldn‘t a member have been dismissed before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for being openly gay? It seems to me that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell did not even remotely introduce the concept or policy of viewing homosexuality as a valid reason for dismissal in the armed forces. On the contrary, repealing it would allow the armed services to, once again, ask and require an answer upon which action may be taken.
Report Post »ozz
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:48amYou are dead on brotha :)
Report Post »solvitur ambulando *** Deo
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:26amYes, I believe you are right, if my memory serves me right. It was to protect homosexuals from being discriminated against and to prevent a a perceived harassment from fellow military personnel. In fact, I think, if you look at the history, it was the homosexual community who wanted “dont ask, dont tell”.
How would living arrangements work anyway…it would require more than just four types of living arrangements. And yes, particularly in Muslim countries it would put homosexual military personnel at risk of being targeted for attack.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 7:55amThat’s what I remember, too!!
Report Post »Aren’t we now taking a step backward?
ozz
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:52amWhen you join the military many rights are suspended in order to defend the rights and freedoms of others. A military could not function if soldiers had the same rights as a civilian. You know this when you sign up. On a side note a civilian federal judge has no jurisdiction any ways.
Report Post »Lanny Gene Wood
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 9:11amYour right, in the military you are under the Unifom Code of Military Justice. What’s uniformed about “gay” rights, when only 3% of the US population is gay? That means 97% aren’t gay and should not be forced aginst their will to except a deviate lifestyle like homosexuality
Report Post »ardua76
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:46amWhy are we still having this argument? Judicial branch: You don’t have the authority! JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER! Freeborne is right. Let the legislature do its job.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:45amThe country struggles to find recruits in the midst of a war and targeting male homosexual to bunk up with other men is the answer. huhhh?
Doesn‘t this discourage American’s from joining and encourages homosexuals to have an orgy?
Married men & women all over the country leave their spouse & sex life at home when they go over seas for months for a time to fight in war. This keeps them strong and focused on winning so they can get back home.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:53amIndeed. It’s a ludicrous notion that whatever small fraction of the 3% of Americans who are gay and wish to serve is large enough to fill a recruiting gap. I mean, assuming there even *is* one.
I hadn’t heard that any branch was failing to meet its recruiting goals.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:38amInteresting. So it appears that sexual perversion is just another component of “all the right stuff”. How very disappointing. I thought the Catholic Church had already fully illustrated the predictable consequences of opening your arms to homosexuals.
Report Post »nsblues
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:49amHomosexuality has zero to do with pedophilia. Most pedophiles are married men. Your ignorance in your responses leads me to believe you must be another liberal troll here to wreak havoc.
Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:58amYes, how silly of me to think that a sexual pervert might, by definition, be interested in….sexual perversion. In case you aren’t up on current events, the Catholic clergy *does not marry*. They do, on the other hand, have a taste for small boys.
Research demonstrates, on the other hand, that homosexuals are about 500% more likely to engage in pedophilia than the general population. Your statistic that “most pedophilia is by married men” is laughable.
Only 3% of the entire population is gay, ergo the 97% could have a fraction of the proclivity and still have larger absolute numbers. These things must be analyzed per capita, of course.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:19amResearch demonstrates that homosexuals are 500% more likely to engage in pedophilia than the general population.
You should be aware already that the Catholic Clergy is not permitted to marry, and that your statistic regarding “the majority of pedophiles are married” is laughably misguided.
Since only 3% of the population is homosexual, the remaining 97% could have the merest fraction of proclivity to pedophilia and still produce larger absolute numbers. These things must be analyzed per capita, of course.
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:36amNsblues writes: “Homosexuality has zero to do with pedophilia. Most pedophiles are married men.”
The research I’m familiar with, involving analyzing the sexual preferences of convicted pedophiles, indicates that homosexuals are about 5 times more likely to engage in pedophilia, actually.
Naturally, since homosexuals comprise only 3% of the population, the remaining 97% could have a fraction of the propensity for pedophilia yet generate larger absolute numbers. Thus, your “married men” statistic is inappropriate and misleading.
Only a per-capita analysis would indicate comparitive proclivity.
Report Post »wingedwolf
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 9:09amNSBLUES, you are right! There has long been this assumption that since gays can’t (naturally) procreate, they must “recruit.” While I can’t definitively say there are zero cases of any gay being a pedophile, the VAST majority are straight men; the majority of those are married. My husband and I are very best friends with girl domestic partners and I actually pity the person, (as much as I COULD pity the person), who either one of them discovered sexually abusing a child, ANY child. There wouldn‘t be a piece of that person left you couldn’t fit in your pocket. Prospero, my husband and I are straight conservatives. Our gay best friends are also God-loving conservatives. We believe that all sincere paths lead to God. Let Him be the judge.
Report Post »nsblues
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 7:05pm“Yes, how silly of me to think that a sexual pervert might, by definition, be interested in….sexual perversion. In case you aren’t up on current events, the Catholic clergy *does not marry*. They do, on the other hand, have a taste for small boys.”
Thank you for showing your anti-catholic bigotry in addition to your ignorance. There is no further need for me to debate facts with someone who is motivated by ignorance and hatred. Why don;t you go over to dailykos or mediamatters, that’s how they do things there
Report Post »Nature777
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:34amI think it should be up to the military, if they want it repealed, repeal it. If not, don’t. But it is a step for gay rights, I only hope that it doesn’t hurt the military.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:31amThere is no right to join the military. As far as rights are concerned, gays enjoy absolutely equal rights to all other Americans, absolutely equal protection under the law, under absolutely equal terms and conditions.
Report Post »Wiz001
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 9:43amI agree with Prospero, They already have the same rights as anyone else in the military.. BUT this is about them proving they are special and they want “special rights”. This would RIP the Navy (from experience) moral apart.. You have to live in such close quarters that it would be very uncomfortable having an openly Queer person on board. Sorry but in my vocabulary Gay is a happy person not someone who has Queer behavior, and a *** use to be a cigerette.. They discouraged us from discussing what we did in the bedrooms when on leave(with the girls we met) in detail, so why do the Queers want to be able to flaunt it in front of other military personel?? As posted by someone above here, the men and women have seperate showers and facilities so would you do the same for them???
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 10:11amWIZ001,
This is an old and tired refrain: why should they get “special” treatment! Well, let me ask you–when you were in the Navy, did you have to hide your sexual preference for fear of immediate discharge? Was that “special”?
Let’s think back to before the Navy was racially integrated. Imagine if you had very light skin but your grandmother was black. Now, if you wanted to be protected from being discharged for having a black grandmother, would you consider this “special” treatment? You might not want to flaunt it–you might not have wanted to identify yourself as black or to march in any parades, but you would probably prefer not to be fired for it. This is exactly the same issue, and the same objections regarding morale were raised concerning blacks in the military. And you know what? The military got over it, because these people do know how to follow orders, and they serve the government and people of the United States.
So give up on the whole “special treatment” argument; it simply does not hold water.
Publius Pencilman
Report Post »publiuspencilman.blogspot.com
Spokavriel
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:32amI never understood this policy. And it hasn’t made sense from the moment the armed forces allowed both sexes to serve. Sexual preference is none of anyone’s business. At least beyond a person and their partner. The worst that happens is you get someone who doesn‘t take No for an answer and that can get them hit with sexual harassment just like any guy who won’t accept No from a woman. Wish I could hear some stories of people winning lawsuits the other way around but it should go equally all ways. No means no and that is all that is needed. Preference is personal business.
Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:39amSuppose my preference is goats, or my mother? If it‘s nobody’s business, shouldn’t I be allowed to openly frolic with my sister?
ozz
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:54amThe policy as it stands is it is no ones business ” do not ask, do not tell”.
Report Post »Zombee
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:23amThe military has successfully put soldiers from very diverse backgrounds into long term close quarters situations. Behavior, especially sexual behavior that deviates from the norm, undercuts the cohesion of the group. Therefore, most military professionals consider such behavior detrimental to the development and maintenance of cohesive units.
Sexual tensions and sex-based favoritism in intimate settings destroy cohesion, whether they involve opposite- or same-sex attraction. If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals. Protecting privacy in a military with open homosexuality would necessitate recognizing essentially four sexes and would severely disrupt units.
Spokavriel
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:32amProspero if you find a goat that can honestly understand and consent then by al means. I haven’t found proof of such an animal existing yet but that is an implied requirement to No means no. Anyone not capable of understanding the situation that‘s abuse and I wasn’t going there.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 2:51amI note that you only addressed one-third of my examples. So you concede that sexual preference is not *absolutely* private, and is in fact a thing that reasonable people might wish to know and evaluate? For instance, to prevent abuse of goats.
Very good. Now that you’ve admitted you were a bit hasty, perhaps you’d like to retract your initial assertion, and admit that preference is not absolutely protected by notions of privacy. In which case, the sexual preference of military members is appropriate to consider.
Report Post »CowboyCasper
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:25amSo I‘m guessing you wouldn’t mind taking a shower with an openly gay person? Or sleeping in the same bunk as an Openly Gay person?
Yes sexual orientation was gotten rid of when females were allowed to serve, but they also still have their own bunks, their own showers…Should we do the same with gays?
Not to mention isn‘t it one of the reasons that the nations we’re fighting right now (Muslims) is that we allow Gays in the United States which they find so offensive that they are willing to kill over. Think of what they are thinking when we send the gays to fight them….What a joke…We need to keep it the way it is.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 3:58amthis is how far the Left has degenerated America.
Report Post »diablosho
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:10amExcept that men are FAR LESS likely to report an “assault” by another man, so violent crime will go up as a result of said “assault”, which will be reported as HATE CRIMES in the media. Not to mention, I don‘t know if you’ve ever deployed or not, but after living in a trailer (one out of 30 rooms, each shared with 3 other men on bunk beds), well, you do the math… I don’t really care if someone is gay or not, just as long as it stays “private” (i.e. I don’t want to see anything when I come home from work…). Many servicemembers agree. I think that should count for something.
Report Post »RubinGaidin
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:59amI am an NCO in the US Army, and am currently deployed. Despite being an NCO, I share a room with 3 other people. Some of our lower enlised, have up to 7 room mates. Our showers are VERY open areas.
On a second note, I have openly gay family members who i deeply care for. I am far from ****-phobic, as long as they keep their private business private.
But fact is, just because I accept that some people choose to live their lives a cirtain way (or are born programed a cirtan way, whichever you belive); I would be highly uncomfortable shareing a bunk with someone who was gay, never mind showering 6 inches from them.
Zombiee is spot on, it would work against the cohession we attempt to form. It would just add another label, and another reason to seperate people, in an enviroment that how close you are as a team can and will effect how your team comes out.
Not to mention logistics. If you bunk gay men with strait men, it will cause no small ammount of tension, and would be a formula for hate crimes. If you bunked them seperatly, now you have placed a label on them, sperated them from the group, and would need to double up on cirtain resourses such as showers and sleeping areas.
iatoala
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 7:20amSorry bur Homosexuals are “Gay” I live near Ft Benning Ga and there is no room for “Gay” there. Tthese guys are tough! An open “Gay” boy is gonna have a hard time of it. No, gayboys better stick to government work.
Report Post »RationalOne
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 7:33amDear All,
Report Post »I would not mind sleeping in a bunk with an “Openly Gay” person. I would not mind showering with an “Openly Gay” person. If I were an “Openly Gay” person, I would expect to have the right to fight for my country. However, would my heart go out to protect those limiting my rights in America? Probably not. Ignorant people, such as those replying in this thread, do not necessarily deserve the protection of those “Openly Gay” individuals in the armed forces, in my opinion. You don’t see “Openly Gay” people limiting “Openly Straight” peoples rights, only the other way around. What does that tell us?
Sincerely,
RationalOne
CO-CONSERV
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 7:57amAs a 10 years Submariner I can say that openly gay personel on a submarine would cause a major issue. On the largest submarines you have about 140 men sharing four toilets and four showers not to mention sharing bunks (hot racking), sometimes three sailors sharing two bunks (whenever you are not on watch you sleep in whichever bunk is empty). My longest patrol was 120 days. If there are openly gay people on board this is going to cause a problem. I don’t care if someone is gay, it is not my business but if you want to make it my business then you have no place on a submarine. A Navy barracks is no better. The barracks I stayed in while in port had two rooms that shared a bathroom (1 toilet, 1 shower, 1 sink) for eight people. If you walked into your room and foudn two guys going at it in the shower or in a bunk this would cause a major problem as well. I don’t think it is the place for people outside the military to force a bad policy on the military.
Report Post »Lanny Gene Wood
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 8:48amThe over whelming majoity of US citizens are straight and or aginst “ gay rights ” since we don’t have “ straight rights ”
Report Post »wingedwolf
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 8:50amSpokavriel, I too am straight and my very best friend(s) are domestic partners for over 20 years. I met my best friend in college about 27 years ago and we stuck to each other like glue. I knew she was bi and didn’t care because I loved her like a twin sister. What I know is that they are just like any of us, wanting a safe place to live, earn a living and raise their families. I think most people’s “ick” factor is sharing toilet and shower space with someone who looks like one’s same gender, but who may perceive you as the “opposite” gender. People have a thing about being “checked out” in a place where they feel safe, but I happen to know that all people do that in locker rooms, etc, maybe not every person, but plenty of non-gays and straight people do it whether they admit it or not! I had a very tiny “ick thing” at first about that, I admit, but it rapidly went away. When people behave honorably and act like decent human beings, you stop thinking about it and life goes on as if nothing ever came to your attention. Basically, people fear that which they don‘t understand and if you humble your heart and look at things from someone else’s view for a minute you begin to know and understand and it seems as if there are no significant differences between you at all. I would have missed more joy, love and life-shared experiences than I could possibly account to you for if I had turned my back when I learned that my bisexual friend had settled down with a same-sex partner. The 4 of us have truly been each other’s very favorite people for over 20 years.
Report Post »rashjoka
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 9:08amI am a man attracted to women but yet I cannot shower or live in the same room as them. Why should a woman attracted to women or man attracted to men be able to shower and live with the type of people they are attracted to especially if those people are straight. I personally could care less about anyone’s sexual orientation but it will cause a lot of uncomfortable situations when you are in the shower and someone you know is gay walks in…are they staring at you? If they let me shower with women then I am all for it but we know that isn’t going to happen
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 10:22am“I am a man attracted to women but yet I cannot shower or live in the same room as them.”
Rashjoka, I am not sure that your relationship problems are really our concern here. But let’s face it–there have always been gay people in the military. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” means that those of your in the military have probably served with them and not even know it. What gay people are asking for is protection against being discharged if their secret is discovered. They are asking to not have to hide their identities.
Those of you who complain that there straight people do not have “straight rights” are full of it, because a straight person does not have to hide their identity for fear of losing the right to serve their country. We don’t call this a “straight right”–it is simply a right that straight people have and gay people do not.
By the way, enough with comparing a consensual relationship between two adults to a man having sex with a goat. It is simply a stupid comparison, and it is above all ignorant.
Publius Pencilman
Report Post »publiuspencilman.blogspot.com
Midwest Belle
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 10:35amRight now, gays basically have to keep it a secret. If they’re allowed to serve openly, what’s to prevent them from making moves on attractive non-gays? Nothing! That’s the problem.
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 10:46amSubstitute ***** for Gay and Homosexual and these are the same arguments against integration of the Military in the 1940’s. I guess fear and bigots never change.
Report Post »P.S. I like women. I only mention that because I am sure I will be attacked by the bigots and called gay.
AZBabe
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 12:59pmApparently you have never served in the military and do not understand the important of the cohesion of a military unit…
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:27pmWhat a lot of people forget is that enlisting in the military is like agreeing to be a minor child again, only this time you are not responsible to your parent but to you branch of service and government. There is no overt freedom of speech in the military otherwise you could tell off your superiors and disobey their orders and just claim “freedom of speech.” There is no open association since the military decides where you live and with whom, they decide (if deployed) where you eat, go to the bathroom, which battle line you fight on, etc. You can not just move around as you please with whoever you please. You have a right to due process only as far as the chain of command goes but if a superior gives orders and you do not carry them out how the superior feels appropriate, you can be disciplined.
The military command structure can not be democratic or even a republic, it is and regardless of country always has been extremely like a socialist dictatorship. It is an authoritarian form of government because it HAS to be to save lives and accomplish the mission. When you enlist, you give up some of your individual rights for the betterment of the service.
That being said, Yes!, once off duty you gain some of those rights back. The military can’t enter your home without notice, can’t search through your trash if you live off base, can’t control what you do in your own bedroom. Hence don’t ask, don’t tell! They don‘t ask if you don’t tell! You take a risk of beng openly gay or a tranny or bisexual because that might somehow disrupt the chain of command. We all know this isn’t really a problem in peace time when stationed in the USA but on foreign soil, with foreign eyes and customs around you, and during a combat mission, any disruption could mean the death of you and others which is unacceptable for any reason, whether because a squad mate being openly gay make someone hesitate or because you got a “dear John” letter from your wife who is cheating on you and divorcing you that causes you to hesititate. hetero or homosexual doesn’t matter….that relationship can be a problem during combat.
Report Post »