Judge Orders Pentagon to Cease Enforcing DADT

Submitted by: madest 7 years ago in

Is this the end? Or will the government appeal?
There are 112 comments:
Male 353
"whats the big deal if these homos want to fight then let them a lot of straight guys are too afraid to join the army so somebody has to defend the country"

AND,,, They can do it with style.
0
Reply
Male 67
"i cant shoot that guy, he`s gorgeous!" eew.
0
Reply
Male 1,222
Dont know, dont care
0
Reply
Male 235
Eww, gays...
0
Reply
Male 56
A step in the right direction for gay rights.
It has been said "separate is not equal" This will be an excellent opportunity for the gay community to show it`s patriotism and support for their country.
0
Reply
Male 1,834
whats the big deal if these homos want to fight then let them a lot of straight guys are too afraid to join the army so somebody has to defend the country
0
Reply
Male 208
Uninteresting. Im straight, an im tired of hearing bout how our fore fathers thought gays were contagious. I say, bring back the prohibition!
0
Reply
Male 79
interesting fact:
the Greeks actually encouraged affair among their soldiers believing it would cause them to fight more valiantly.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
meh//
0
Reply
Male 39,877
If they would ban all heterosexual activity also then the no-gay policy would not be descriminatory. Let`s do that.
0
Reply
Male 5
i think nobody but the men who are serving should judge what´s better for them.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
deleted my old posts due to embarrassing spelling errors. but anyways. why didn`t they just name it operation homo hunt. just so everyone knows what its about. why give poo silly drating names that doesn`t make much sense. drating media brainwashing through stupid phrases and repeating them over and over.
0
Reply
Male 1,505
Only 1 in 6 Americans have been military servicemembers sometime during their life.

The ratio of very vocal people that think they have an educated opinion of DADT seems much higher.

Just saying.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I`m done for tonight. See you later.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Wow I didn`t realize something:
We were talking about the same law this whole time.

Note to everyone: just because an act passed by Congress and approved by the President does not make it anything less than a LAW. Nor does it make it exempt from Judicial Review. It was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Now I see
You are blatantly misinformed.
The United States Code is LAW <PERIOD>.

source



PS I liked the car one better ;-).
0
Reply
Male 602
Thanks Davy! It sure doesn`t beat jumping off of a mountain like yours! I figured 6 years is long enough for one picture lol.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Marley! New avie. Nice one man.
0
Reply
Male 602
Don`t take my silence as an admission of loss Cajun. You google 10 U.S.C. § 654 and you come up with a policy not a law, I`m just done talking about it :)

Just don`t come to me when the Judiciary decides when wars are unconstitutional and must be stopped, or when UAV strikes in Pakistan are unconstitutional and must be stopped. It remains a dangerous precedent to be setting. A political ploy by an activist judge legislating from the bench, something that is scary indeed. Good day sir.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So there you have it
DADT is not just policy it is (or was) the law.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
cont...
7 association, and to petition the government, guaranteed by the First
8 Amendment.2
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@T-Marley

If you decide to come back, here is the Judge`s decision. As you can see it is the law I cited earlier. As a matter of fact the DoD issued the policy in response to the law. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.
[quote">Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the
2 statute known as the "Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell" Act ("the Act" or "the Policy"),
3 found at 10 U.S.C. § 654, and its implementing regulations.1 Plaintiff`s
4 challenge is two-fold: it contends the Act violates its members` rights to
5 substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United
6 States Constitution, and its members` rights of freedom of speech,
7 association, a
0
Reply
Male 9,305
"You can be gay, just DADT anyone about anal sex!"

One shouldn`t be banging and bragging about it anyway, that`s just rude and classless. I also don`t want to hear your recent p*ssy f*cking either. That`s against nature and a sin, and it makes baby Jesus cry, and adult Jesus barf.

So there.
0
Reply
Male 602
And back to the beginning of the circle we go again, I`m done with this.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Likewise T-Marley policy is NOT law and does not carry the same weight. If it is in contradiction with the constitution then the courts can say it should not be enforced. The act of a Federal court intervening in executive decisions is not unprecedented.
0
Reply
Male 602
Sorry*

"You can be gay, just DADT anyone about anal sex!"
0
Reply
Male 15,832
There`s no way in hell the Pentagon is going to change their policy based on a ruling from some little pissant district judge. There`s no story here till the Supreme Court rules on this. Now, move along...
0
Reply
Male 602
Then make up your mind what you are defending, law or policy.

Article I of the constitution allows congress to create rules and regulations for land and naval forces.

Just because congress does something, does not make it a law. A policy is not a law just because congress was involved.

Article II of the constitution allows the court jurisdiction over laws, treaties, or cases between states. Not policies.

DADT is a policy, not a law. They got around this by suing the United States, and not the military itself. It was a bare thread that wound them there.

Appellate authority means the authority to be involved in appeals. Since this case was not tried in a military court, there was no appeals process involved, it was in civil court from the beginning.

But you are arguing that DADT should be repealed, but they still can`t have sex with each other, and that is no different from DADT.

"You can be gay just DADT anybody a
0
Reply
Male 10,855
They also have the power of Judicial review in military law because military law IS federal law.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
And my stance is that they DO have appellate authority in military matters.

Maybe they will act those feelings maybe they won`t. This way those that won`t, will NOT be discharged for the disposition.
0
Reply
Male 602
Buddy I haven`t shifted anything, throughout this entire debate my stance has been clearly that this is not the place of the civilian courts. The link to the sodomy section was in direct response to you asking for proof of any other laws that dealt with homosexuality in the military.

If you ban the act, but allow gays to serve openly, you haven`t solved the problem. They will still be punished for acting on the feelings they have towards the same sex, even if they can feel that way openly.

That`s like saying it`s ok for blacks to enroll in a college, but illegal for them to be on school property.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
T-Marley the military answers to civilian authority via the President. It is the civilians (congress) who can create and repeal laws to govern the military through congress. Any law congress passes is subject to Judicial Review by the Judicial Branch.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Are you saying it`s ok to ban the activity itself but not the disposition to like it?[/quote]

We have a winner.

Besides YOU were citing a law regarding acitivity and ONLY activity. You accuse me of "shifting" the argument?
0
Reply
Male 602
And while the 1803 case you refer to sets precedent for ruling something unconstitutional, it does not anywhere set a precedent for the civilian courts to interfere with the military or its justice system. I stand by my opinion that allowing the civilian court system to interfere with our military system is a very dangerous road to go down.

Military life is not civilian life. You sign your rights away in many respects. That is why a military court system was needed, to deal with the differences between military life and civilian life.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Furthermore a policy is NOT law as in it does not have to be enforced. The policy does not compel anyone to do anything but mostly serves to guide them.
0
Reply
Male 602
Since you like to be so clear on activity versus orientation, every section of the policy you link deals with the activity with only one exception.

Paragraph B subsection 2

Every other section is dealing with the actual activity itself. Why you try to separate the two is beyond me, but I just thought you would want to know because the distinction is apparently important to you.
0
Reply
Male 602
Again cajun, that`s >>shifting<< the argument. Are you saying it`s ok to ban the activity itself but not the disposition to like it? If they repeal DADT and leave the sodomy reg, it just means people will use a different method of getting gays out of the military (although it would be a win for lesbians that don`t like anal).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Here`s the law again.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] reference to an 1803 case[/quote]
Judicial review.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Sorry if the way I used battlefield was vague.
There was no need for any gay ban in the first place.

Clinton wanted to repeal the absolute gay ban but was forced to compromise with DADT.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@cajun: You reference a New York Times reporter as proof of something? You reference a statement of POLICY to back up your statement that something is law? Your other reference to an 1803 case justifies what?
0
Reply
Male 987
"Look, no-one gives a sh*t if you "approve" of homosexuality or not. You don`t approve of homosexuality? Fine, then don`t go out and f*ck another dude. Easy. "
This somewhat, just in a less offensive manner.
Opinions are useless when we get into tactical situations. If there are 4 men in your squad and only one member who is gay knows how to defuse the nuclear device that is about to kill a few million people, I`ll tell him to go defuse it and make sure he gets honors for doing so.
TL;DR the military should care more about your skills you provide, not your personal life. (unless it interferes with your skills; i.e. cocaine addiction)
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Again T-Marley that`s >>activity<< NOT >>orientation<<.
0
Reply
Male 602
Also Cajun

Section 925 Article 125 governing sodomy

So, you can join, but you still can`t have sex.

If there were no other rules or regs governing homosexuality, why would there have been a need for DADT?

0
Reply
Male 602
"I actually did look that up, doesn`t sound like they were getting porked while guns were blazing."

Yeah, the first thing I want to do in combat is get naked and find someone to `pork`.

Say what you mean, as being on a battlefield is not the same as being in combat. Trench lines in WWI didn`t always have shooting, but you think that was any less of a battlefield? Of course no one is going to start banging when bullets are flying; staying alive and taking the fight to the enemy is pretty much all you want to think about. So why make such a pointless statement in the first place?

It seems like every time someone invalidates your argument you shift the debate to something else. DADT has been around for 17 years, you think it`s just coincidence that a judge is trying to make political points on it 20 days before midterms?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I don`t personally approve of homosexuality[/quote]
*Checks Profile* Christian Conservative. Figures.

Look, no-one gives a sh*t if you "approve" of homosexuality or not. You don`t approve of homosexuality? Fine, then don`t go out and f*ck another dude. Easy.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
great, one step forward of the USofA.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Admitting homosexuality != contempt towards an officer.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
DADT is basically sub-section 654 chapter 37 part II of the United States code. This is the policy being struck down. Once it`s erased there is nothing else governing homosexuality.
0
Reply
Male 105
@Cajun - Commissioned Officers under the UCMJ do not have all the rights that civilians do under the Constitution. I.E. Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. UCMJ Section 888 Article 88. Which would be protected by the constitution under freedom of speech.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Also for number 1:
Marbury vs. Madison.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@nettech

1: Art 3 Sec 2 USC
2 & 3: linky plus try scanning all the links on this page for any of the "old homosexual laws".
0
Reply
Male 1,073
And since everyone has put so much thought into this, how do we house gays - both male and female?

Integrate with straight? Or separate `gay`, `lesbian`, male, and female rooms, showers, etc??
0
Reply
Female 1,427
FINALLY.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I actually did look that up, doesn`t sound like they were getting porked while guns were blazing.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
OK, so back up some of what you claim:

Since DADT and every military law is federal law it is (or DADT was) subject to Judicial Review" - good luck with that one since DADT is a POLICY

"No, when DADT was introduced the original laws regarding Homosexuality were repealed" - prove it

"Afterwards there will be no penalty. So if you`re gay, lesbian, or bi the military won`t care so long as you don`t have sex with another person." - prove it
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Right now people who admit that they`re gay even though they were not caught having sex. And yes I do know what`s going on.


It is not my `take` on things.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Hmm guess I didn`t read the articles closely enough.

BUT, DADT is not about sexual activity but sexual orientation.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
You are entitled to believe and live your life whatever way you want to believe and live it.

So are people of ANY lifestyle, sexual preference, race, religion, etc......

You are not special. Let people live freely, the same as you want to.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@cajun247

So far most everything you`ve said seems to have no basis in fact, but instead seems to be your `take` on things.

It is so easy to look this up!
0
Reply
Male 602
Also Cajun, how many married couples jointly serve in the military? Are they breaking the law every night? Are they not going to have sex if they happen to be stationed near each other regardless of where they are?
0
Reply
Male 602
The court is actually a large business of usurping authority. Where do you think the term "legislating from the bench" came from?

Judges at most high levels are appointed for life, not elected or representative. The judge who made this ruling was appointed by the very man who introduced DADT. Though we have a rough system of checks and balances, the Judicial branch has some of the most power, because they don`t have to fear being fired by their electors, of which there are none.

An appeal process is a long one. So even if the Executive disapproves, the court`s decision will take a long time to reverse. Whereas a law that they don`t like can be struck down in one ruling.

And Cajun, if you don`t think soldiers are going to have sex while in a battlefield, do a quick google search about pregnant soldiers in Iraq and the problems they face, or the many cases of sexual assault. Or think about Vietnam and sucky sucky.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
Carnal knowledge only applies to having sex with someone under 16.

As far as having sex `on duty`, one is in the military 24/7. The laws don`t turn off at the end of the duty day.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Before there was a penalty for just having the wrong sexual orientation. Now there is a penalty for admitting to having the wrong sexual orientation which has been blatantly misused. Afterwards there will be no penalty. So if you`re gay, lesbian, or bi the military won`t care so long as you don`t have sex with another person.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Dude no soldier in his right mind is going to have sex with another on duty (at least not in a battlefield anyway).
I believe "carnal knowledge" (sexual intercourse) is also grounds for court-martial.
If this law is successfully struck down then there is no penalty for admitting your homosexuality.
0
Reply
Male 503
ok... lets get abusive... to all you F$%#@&s who thing DADT is totaly fine... let me put it to you this way... Please die for your country, but refrain from loving who you want. scum. republican BS
0
Reply
Male 1,073
And if the laws barring homosexuality were repealed as you say, why was there the need for the policy of DADT??
0
Reply
Male 1,073
What `laws` are you referring to? Sodomy is still illegal in the military.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@nettech

No, when DADT was introduced the original laws regarding Homosexuality were repealed.

So basically it`s like this:
Past: "You gay? Get out and don`t come back!"
Present: "We won`t ask but don`t say anything."
Future: "I don`t give a 5h17. If you`re a good marksman and willing follow orders you`re in!"
0
Reply
Male 10,855
This way the Federal court system is not going to "usurp the military court system" not without approval (or with disapproval) from the executive or legislative branches anyway.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Interestingly the federal courts do have original jurisdiction in regards to ambassadors and diplomats. Since DADT and every military law is federal law it is (or DADT was) subject to Judicial Review. If a judge rules against any federal law, then the executive branch has 60 days to request an appeal. Considering this President though he`s not going to ask Eric Holder to file for one.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
Hasanyone considered this:

Before DADT, it was permitted to ask if a service member was a homosexual. DADT stopped that.

With the repeal of DADT, and in the absence of any new policy, we go back to the way things were.

Is that what people really want when they ask for repeal??
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Like I said T-Marley this was a case of Judicial Review. As in: is this law compatible with the constitution. The federal judge said no.
Furthermore, no Federal judge is going to bog him/herself down with every order or court-martial or military law case. If the military did not have their own court system then the federal system would have to hear every court-martial.
0
Reply
Male 602
Which brings us full circle.

If the Federal court system is going to usurp the Military court system, why have a military court system in the first place. What then stops the Federal court system from undermining the chain of command in the military with rulings like this, or the previous "get out of Afghanistan" example?

Now, personally I don`t know how I feel about DADT or the repeal of it, I don`t feel that gay people should be discriminated against, but I don`t believe I`m the person to make that call.

I honestly don`t even agree with the questionnaire system because soldiers are given orders, not surveys, and they should follow them within reason.

But I sincerely believe that you shouldn`t say one thing and do another, thereby making the troops feel like you cared what they thought one day, and didn`t give a crap the next.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Good point but I don`t believe the appellate military courts have the power of "Judicial Review", the Federal Courts on the other hand do.
0
Reply
Male 602
Ok Cajun then going by your logic this case still should have started out in a military court system first and then been appealed on its way up the chain of courts, correct?

Since they have original jurisdiction, as you say. This was a civil court proceeding from the very beginning, which is the point I was making.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Each branch even have their own appellate courts just like every state in the Union. All of which are supervised by the federal court system.
0
Reply
Male 422
@xiquiripat

Very good reasoning there and well thought out. Although I don`t personally approve of homosexuality, I don`t believe they should be discriminated.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@T-Marley

The military courts have [quote]original[/quote] (trial) jurisdiction (in this case court martial).
0
Reply
Male 602
Cajun if that is the case, then why have a military court system at all?
0
Reply
Male 2,422
I think that they should proceed delicately with this issue. First allow openly gay people to serve in a technical capacity. It seems stupid to me to throw people out who can repair and upgrade billion dollar aircraft, maintain and improve our space capabilities, or are good at cyber-warfare just because they are gay. We need those skills to keep our superiority over conventional military forces. Once people get used to the idea then they can start joining combat units. But I don`t think it should be forced all at once because that could hurt the moral of people who are fighting and that may be more important than having a few extra guns. And doing it the middle of a war seems like a bad idea too, especially when the enemy are ultra-conservative Muslims who are vitriolic homophobes and who will use it as propaganda pointing out what a decadent and perverse society the U.S. has to get more recruits from the rest of Muslim society which isn`t exactly open-minded when it comes to gays.
0
Reply
Male 385
Volsunga That`s right. I agree with you 100%
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So do the "inferior courts" defined in Art 3 Sec 2.
0
Reply
Male 505
Being gay should have no bearing on whether or not you`re in the military. It should also have no bearing on the person being discharged, it`s archaic and pointless.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@T-Marley and Volsunga

Read my previous comment. Plus all of the military do have cases which in fact "arise under [the] constitution" as the military itself IS defined by the constitution, therefore the Supreme Court even has appellate in all court-martials.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@N-Vet

Excuse me but all laws regarding the military are actually "laws of the United States" as defined in Art 3 Sec 2 of the United States Constitution. Ergo the all Federal Courts had jurisdiction in this matter since.
0
Reply
Male 41
I think this is great. Can you imagine how terrifying it would be to the enemy to be attacked by a gay brigade. Can you say wheeeee.
0
Reply
Male 602
I`m with Vol on this one. The civilian court system has no say on this. The President, Congress, and Sec. Gates have all promised to work on the repeal of DADT. This is just another judge trying to score points. Nice to promise to hear from the soldiers first and then completely go back on your word. The "questionnaires" still won`t be reviewed until after December 2nd. But every body wants to get their 2 cents in before the midterm elections.

What`s next? "Judge orders war in Afghanistan unconstitutional, orders all troops home"?

Let`s also not forget that DADT was a compromise that was introduced by DemoGod Bill Clinton, not a measure of Republican induced hate. So good job wasting time repealing something your own party instated.
0
Reply
Male 39,877
stopping DADT does NOT make it "legal" to be gay in the military. I just stops the policy of DADT.

Prior to DADT the military had to have proof you were gay to kick you out. With DADT policy they just had to have a rumor from someone that you said you were. They can still kick a gay guy out if they catch him inside a gay bar or giving a blow job or something like that.
0
Reply
Female 166
"I see a future where all expelled service members will be reinstated or compensated. You can`t go around ruining peoples lives and not expect to pay a price."

Don`t push your luck. Their not paying reparations for slavery, there isn`t going to be a massive gay military reimbursement. But maybe reinstatement! This makes me happy still anyone could stop in and poo all over it at any time.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
As much as I`d like to see DADT repealed, federal judges have no jurisdiction in the Military. It has to be a ruling by a military court, law by congress, or executive order by the president. By the logic of accepting this judge`s ruling, any federal judge would have the power of the president in respect to the military.
0
Reply
Female 346
This is great!

And to those that are saying that having gay people in out military is a bad thing, consider that anyone signing up is going to be a person able to handle the extreme conditions they are put through. So stop with the silly stereotyping.
0
Reply
Male 105
@Gerry
Exactly, the only Federal Court with jurisdiction in military matters is the Supreme Court as of 2008. Before that only Military Courts had Jurisdiction...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]hopefully someone along the line is sensible enough to put an end to this bullpoo. civil rights are great and all but when it comes to the military, its time to stop dicking around[/quote]

I think you`re under-estimating your country`s soldiers. Soldiers deal with stuff, it`s what they do. Being in the military requires a high degree of practicality and the practical difference in dropping DADT is...nothing. Seriously. We dropped DADT in the UK years back and all that happened was that one or two conservative officers resigned. The average soldier in the field quickly realised that it didn`t matter. The key questions about other soldiers are whether they`re good enough and whether they can be depended on when the poo hits the fan. If they`re solid on those, it doesn`t matter if they`re as bent as a three quid note.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
That`s why it`s called a Republic Angillion.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Short-sighted people applaud judges taking away our right to representative self government just because they like the rules the judges make in particular cases.[/quote]

That`s a legitimate point, but there has never been pure representative government and it would be a bad idea to try it. The USA was very explicitly set up to stop it happening. The USA constitution and the USA bill of rights are the two most famous blocks on pure representative government, but the idea of blocking it is ground into the entire framework of the USA. Other countries, past and present, have done or do the same thing either complete from their foundation (e.g. Republic of Rome) or piecemeal during a longer foundation period (e.g. England).

In a pure representative government, no-one has any rights and minorities will get shafted. And we`re all in one or more minorities.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
The issue with Don`t Ask Don`t Tell is that it requires the military by policy to discharge any admittedly gay, openly gay or "discovered" gay people.

The really stupid part is that the military violates it`s polcies all the time... but apparently this one they refuse to not execute-

Back to the topic, so ultimately: essential personnel have been discharged from military service based on the policy.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I honestly do not see any problem with DADT.[/quote]
Yeah, to be fair though, you list yourself as a Christian Conservative. Hardly a surprise.
0
Reply
Male 559
No, short-sighted people fail to see that a representative self government does not possess the right to remove fundamental rights from a minority.
0
Reply
Male 53
hopefully someone along the line is sensible enough to put an end to this bullpoo. civil rights are great and all but when it comes to the military, its time to stop dicking around
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Davio
because if straight people in the military are known to be straight then nothing happens, if gay people are known to be gay, they get discharged. If a guy in the military says `this is a photo of my husband Mike` then they get kicked out
0
Reply
Male 39,877
to be exact, the judge stomped his foot and said "stop it!"
0
Reply
Male 907
Short-sighted people applaud judges taking away our right to representative self government just because they like the rules the judges make in particular cases.
0
Reply
Male 1,116
Finally! I highly doubt this is the end, but a step in the right direction at least.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
good for her
0
Reply
Male 214
the problem, DavioMagnifi, is that it expressly forbids gay service personnel from revealing their sexuality - even in the pursuit of fulfilling their perfectly natural sexual and emotional lives with other consenting adults. It therefore reduces the non-hetrosexual personnel`s quality of life expressly because they are not hetrosexual. it is direct oppression of minorities. do you now see the problem?
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Great news! I had buddy I went through boot camp with kicked out of the military because he was gay. So, I`m excited about this.
0
Reply
Male 515
woot, finally a step toward social equality in america for once
0
Reply
Male 599
I honestly do not see any problem with DADT.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
*applauds*
0
Reply
Male 2,796
Good, next we can get them to be able to marry and this can all stop being news.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: Judge Orders Pentagon to Cease Enforcing DADT [Rate Link] - Is this the end? Or will the government appeal?
0
Reply