Don't Ask, Don't Tell declared unconstittuional

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Whoop-dee-doo.....J/K.

The President and the DoD have been plotting the death of DADT for some months now; I do believe that it's going to happen soon. This ruling would have packed a hell of a lot more punch had it come 10 years ago, so what I want to know is why now?

Because a group of Log Cabin Republicans sued the US Government over the rule and it finally got this far. That's why now.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Because a group of Log Cabin Republicans sued the US Government over the rule and it finally got this far. That's why now.

The LCR has been around since the 1970s, DADT was signed into law 17 years ago and this lawsuit was filed just a few months ago. I am just wondering why they waited til after the President and the Pentagon started planning the DADT repeal. I'm thinking maybe they are just sick of waiting and are trying to speed up the process but I still think they should have done this 10 years ago instead of now when DADT is already on it's deathbed.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The LCR has been around since the 1970s, DADT was signed into law 17 years ago and this lawsuit was filed just a few months ago. I am just wondering why they waited til after the President and the Pentagon started planning the DADT repeal. I'm thinking maybe they are just sick of waiting and are trying to speed up the process but I still think they should have done this 10 years ago instead of now when DADT is already on it's deathbed.

It might have something to do with the fact that we had two ongoing wars at the time with low recruitment numbers and forced prolonged commitments by current military personnel all the while the military is systematically kicking out trained soldiers with valuable skills just because they happen to be gay. Yeah, that might be a good reason.

[33girl]

LOL.

With all the rush stories floating around, I keep reading this thread title as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Recruitment."

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

It might have something to do with the fact that we had two ongoing wars at the time with low recruitment numbers and forced prolonged commitments by current military personnel all the while the military is systematically kicking out trained soldiers with valuable skills just because they happen to be gay. Yeah, that might be a good reason.

While that's a good argument for military leaders and politicians to make against DADT this is IMO a civil rights issue and that's what the LCR make it as well. Even in peacetime they were against DADT. I'm just saying I would have liked to see this go down 15 years ago BEFORE all of the discharges happened.

[ASTalumna06]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I agree with DADT... at least when it comes to the Infantry MOS.

I have two cousins and a few friends who have served in the infantry, and have been on the front lines, and although they have no negative feelings toward homosexuals, they all say the same thing (which I happen to agree with) - sex, or even sexual feelings or distractions, have no place in war.

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I agree with DADT... at least when it comes to the Infantry MOS.

I have two cousins and a few friends who have served in the infantry, and have been on the front lines, and although they have no negative feelings toward homosexuals, they all say the same thing (which I happen to agree with) - sex, or even sexual feelings or distractions, have no place in war.

How would having an openly gay homosexual versus a closeted homosexual keep sex or sexual feelings of distractions from occurring?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I agree with DADT... at least when it comes to the Infantry MOS.

You shouldn't because you share the popular opinion. The most recent polls show that the majority of servicemembers and civilians are against the repeal of DADT. I hate to burst your bubble but there are gay people already on the front lines and they have yet to rape anyone in a foxhole. If you're getting shot at sex is one of the last things on your mind

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I agree with DADT... at least when it comes to the Infantry MOS.

I have two cousins and a few friends who have served in the infantry, and have been on the front lines, and although they have no negative feelings toward homosexuals, they all say the same thing (which I happen to agree with) - sex, or even sexual feelings or distractions, have no place in war.

But that doesn't make sense since there are gay people serving right now (oh and straight men and women serving together) they're just forced to LIE. A lot. All DADT does is make gay men and women break the honor codes they swear to uphold.

Women have served in combat, even though they're technically not supposed to, and have fought, saved lives and died with honor all without being a "distraction" to the men.

And you'll never stop humans from having any sexual feelings (fraternization happens all the time) but if all someone can think about while being shot at is that the guy behind him/her might be gay, then s/he's the one with the serious problem.

[Amicus]

From what I read somewhere, the President and the Justice Department have 60 days to appeal the Judge Phillips' ruling. The mid-term election is 50-odd days away. It will be interesting to see what path the Obama administration takes.

[sdtennisgal]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I agree with DADT... at least when it comes to the Infantry MOS.

I have two cousins and a few friends who have served in the infantry, and have been on the front lines, and although they have no negative feelings toward homosexuals, they all say the same thing (which I happen to agree with) - sex, or even sexual feelings or distractions, have no place in war.

ASTalumna06: You certainly have the right to express your opinion, however, almost the same argument was used to keep women (like myself) out of most military occupations (other than nursing) until the 1970's when a woman named Frontiero sued the U.S. Air Force. To a certain degree, the same type of argument was also used to support segregation by race when the armed forces were initially desegreated (the racial tensions would cause too many distractions).

As a reserve officer (full disclosure: not in a combat arms position), I can tell you that DADT is already basically dead. Most younger enlisted really don't care (which I think is a generational thing). Most senior officers see pursuing any sort of investigation (which now has to be started at the general officer level) to be a complete waste of time and effort, and a major distractor from operations.

The only folks who DO seem to care, from my observations are mostly male senior enlisted personnel and members of the chaplain corps. Many of these senior enlisted are also still not comfortable with female officers (...I could share some stories).

Again, full disclosure: I am not a lesbian. I can say I have worked in the military with a number of very good folks who I knew or strongly suspected were gay or lesbian, and many are outstanding sailors and marines. Have I seen some gay/lesbians get into trouble because of personal misconduct? Yes, but not nearly to the extent I have seen it with straight sailors/marines (particularly the scenario of young male officers with female enlisted).

Anyway, I will personally be glad to see DADT gone. I think it is discriminatory and I think our society has moved beyond the thinking that brought it (and the previous, more draconian, policy) into existance.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

While that's a good argument for military leaders and politicians to make against DADT this is IMO a civil rights issue and that's what the LCR make it as well. Even in peacetime they were against DADT. I'm just saying I would have liked to see this go down 15 years ago BEFORE all of the discharges happened.

But it's more likely to help them make their argument. Expediency generally overrides irrelevant or irrational arguments.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The LCR has been around since the 1970s, DADT was signed into law 17 years ago and this lawsuit was filed just a few months ago. I am just wondering why they waited til after the President and the Pentagon started planning the DADT repeal. I'm thinking maybe they are just sick of waiting and are trying to speed up the process but I still think they should have done this 10 years ago instead of now when DADT is already on it's deathbed.

The judge said that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas was key. Also this article says it was the first time the law was challenged on its face.
Article focused on the Judge