Don't Ask, Don't Tell declared unconstittuional

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 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.

Odds are they will request a temporary injunction, appeal, and then continue down their slower path of repealing it after the "report" in December. Yes, I'm so excited they're doing it this way /sarcasm , but it does require Congress to repeal unfortunately.

And then a change in the UCMJ, anyone know how that gets amended?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Odds are they will request a temporary injunction, appeal, and then continue down their slower path of repealing it after the "report" in December. Yes, I'm so excited they're doing it this way /sarcasm , but it does require Congress to repeal unfortunately.

And then a change in the UCMJ, anyone know how that gets amended?

UCMJ is amended by Congress. Though IIRC, DADT isn't a separate article. Those are processed as general article cases. I could be wrong though.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

UCMJ is amended by Congress. Though IIRC, DADT isn't a separate article. Those are processed as general article cases. I could be wrong though.

DADT is a law but didn't amend the UCMJ. It just said that you couldn't seek out whether or not someone was gay and that as long as the person didn't "admit" to it they could be gay in the military.

The UCMJ currently states that homosexual conduct (not like on the front lines but AT ALL) is grounds for separation. (The policy is in pdf form here) And it puts into practice this US Code:
10 USC 654

(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—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

So, currently, revoking DADT doesn't solve the problem that being gay in the military will get you discharged.

[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.