Judge Orders Suspension of DADT

|

It took the Log Cabin Republicans filing suit—not action from President Obama—to put a (temporary) stop to the ridiculous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. CNN has details:

A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy on Tuesday.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

The judge had previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members Fifth Amendment rights but delayed issuing the injunction.

The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

An appeal by the Department of Justice is anticipated.

NEXT: Reason on the (Local) Tube: Tim Cavanaugh Bids Adieu to Cal Budget Fooferaw

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is going to embarrass the Obama.

    I wonder what the effect on the elections will be?

    1. Don’t worry, Obama will take credit for it. You the voter demanded change and your man Obama is providing it.

      1. Obama has given me none of the change I asked for when I voted for Barr.

        1. You!??!? You’re the OTHER guy who voted for Barr? Fancy meeting you here.

          1. I voted for him too, but I’ll never know if it counted or not because my voter registration stuff was FUBAR.

    2. Don’t think it will. Most of my friends are rank-and-file Democrats. They all love Obama, but don’t actually know much about him. I think they are totally unaware of his poor record on gay rights, or make excuses that he “has to” take the positions he does.

      1. Oh, and like others have commented here, there are more gay Republicans than you might think. At least here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

        1. There are many gay Libertarians, as well, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

          Gay Democrats are like abused spouses who return to their attackers.

          From: http://www.outrightusa.org/

        2. If we want a good idea of how many gay Republicans there are, we just need to count how many gay-bashing Republicans there are.

          The correlation is quite remarkable.

      2. If you define “poor record” as the most pro-gay-rights presidency in history, then ok.

        I will be watching to see if they appeal though.

        1. What has Obama done for the queers?

          1. Not too much, but what are we measuring him against? Our expectations of him as a progressive savior? I’m comparing him to other presidents, and he’s simply the most pro-gay-rights president in history. I’m frankly quite happy with the progress gay rights have been making, and we don’t really need Obama, so if he thinks it’s politically better for him to let these things come about without his direct action, I don’t really care, nor do I know what exactly he’s supposed to be doing.

            1. “If you define “poor record” as the most pro-gay-rights presidency in history, then ok.”

              “I’m frankly quite happy with the progress gay rights have been making, and we don’t really need Obama, so if he thinks it’s politically better for him to let these things come about without his direct action, I don’t really care, nor do I know what exactly he’s supposed to be doing.”

              Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!

            2. What are we measuring up? Go look up f’ing Dick Cheney’s opinions about gay rights. Obama is to the right of Cheney.

              1. “Measuring up”? Think that was supposed to read, “Measuring against.”

            3. Just the kind of apologetics I referred to above. Obama could have, at the least, weigh in on DADT in one of his speeches. Go look it up: he has scrupulously avoided the topic.

              When he did talk about gay rights on the campaign trail, it was to say he opposes gay marriage.

            4. I’m comparing him to other presidents, and he’s simply the most pro-gay-rights president in history.

              By that standard, doesn’t that make Thomas Jefferson, or any president from around that time period, “the most pro-gay-rights president” in history?

              The issue of gay rights came up during Obama’s presidency, and he outright ignored it. Isn’t that more anti-gay than not even having the chance to ignore it?

              And remember that saying someone is “the most pro-” in the group doesn’t say anything about “how much pro-” that person is. Just because ignoring gays is a step up from actively harassing them, doesn’t make Obama pro-gay.

              1. Obama has publicly called for an end to DADT on multiple occasions.

                1. Obama is the Commander in Chief with the power to end DADT with one penstroke. He does not need Congress or the Senate to do anything… he is the top dog of the military. Just asClinton issued the directive to put it in place, Obama holds the power to wipe it out. I am not a gay service member, but if I were, I would feel far more betrayed by President Obama than I would President Bush who made no bones about supporting DADT. Obama has the opportunity to do the right thing and just let DADT go away… however, all signs point to his administration going back to court to fight to keep it – again. How exactly does that make him the most ‘pro-gay rights president’? Oh, not to mention, he has on multiple occasions made it clear he opposes gay marriage. You see what you want to see.

                  1. Uhm, wrong-o, moose breath. O’Skippy doesn’t have the authority to override the law – and that’s what DADT is, as it was passed by Congress, and signed in to law by Billy Jeff. If you’re confusing the signing ceremony with an executive order, please return to 5th grade and re-review the chapters on seperations of powers in you social studies book.

                2. Hmm, you’re right. Looked at the record. He’s called for an end many times. Always followed by, but not right now.

            5. Wasn’t Bush 41 the first president to sign an order barring discrimination against gays by the executive branch? I dont recall him taking any anti gay positions on any issue. He pushed strongly for the ADA which was a bad law but it did help people with AIDS in many ways.

          2. I thought he was the first openly gay president?

      3. Of all of the ass-licking arguments in support of politician “X”, the “he has to” argument makes my balls itch like no other.

        “He has to support prohibition publicly, though privately . . .”

        Bull fucking shit.

        1. But they “have to”, because if they don’t win an election to some office or another they might have to get a real job.

        2. What mad libertarian guy said.

      4. Why should not Obama defend DADT, or at least authorize independent counsel to do so?

  2. So wait. Republican activists broke DADT? Does Spock wear a beard in this universe?

    1. I put it to you that Republicans can be in favor of gay rights. Republicans can in fact be gay.

      1. Does not compute.

        1. Obama is against gay rights. Some Republicans are pro gay rights.

          1. This is illogical. Illogical. Need more time….

            1. There is no more time. The time is now. Republicans have repealed DADT.

              1. )*&%^%$*&^)*&^)*&%(*^%(*%&^%(*%

              2. “You are the evil gay! The evil gay must be destroyed!”

            2. Tell me more about this thing you call “love”

              1. Here honey, have a cigar.

      2. I know more than one couple who are both gay and vehemently republican. I just find a sweet, savage irony in it.

        1. I know some here in Austin. It’s not terribly ironic when there are some pockets of non-caring (or non-loud) Republicans around here. Some gay couples (or individual gays) are smart enough to understand that they’d rather have a job than some asshole pandering to them and not doing shit.

  3. Chopper Pilot: This is the United States Military. Please step out of the cave immediately. You are AWOL, we are not leaving without you.

    Meatwad: Oh man, the Marines found us.

    Master Shake: Alpha team, go to night-vision mode! Oh yeah, they found us. God, they’re good!

    Meatwad: They won’t take us if we’re gay. Hurry, do the YMCA thing!

    Master Shake: Seriously? All right, you do the M.

  4. It took the Log Cabin Republicans…

    God Bless America!

    1. Damn Obstructionist Republicans.

      DADT – Signed into law by Bill Clinton and defended by Obama -> shotdown by christfag republicans and activitist courts.

      What is not to like in this?

  5. If you look at the astronomical number of women soldiers who report being sexually assaulted, maybe it would be best if only gay men are allowed into the military. In any case, that is a much bigger problem for the military than dealing with a small minority of gay soldiers.

    1. small minority of gay soldiers

      I view this entry as historical data to the contrary.

    2. small minority of gay soldiers

      What about the large majority of gay sailors?

      1. hey, Hey, HEY! It’s not teh ghey if they do it while underway!

    3. If you look at the astronomical number of women soldiers who report being sexually assaulted, maybe it would be best if only gay men are allowed into the military.

      I wonder how many of those reports are accurate.

      Remember that servicepersons can be punished for engaging in consensual sex in certain circumstances.

  6. This is going to embarrass the Obama.

    Nope. He’s already been given the official media-wide Gay OK for ending DADT, without having done it. If DADT is dead now, it’s old news, because he already did it, back when he didn’t do it. And when his DOJ files pro-DADT appeals, that doesn’t count, because…uh…Palin…is racist…against gays? Close enough.

    I wonder what the effect on the elections will be?

    None. Gay non-Republicans will vote for Democrats, and so will 97.5% of Log Cabin Republicans. Just like always.

    1. You really believe that Log Cabin Republicans are a group of gay Republicans of which 97.5% vote Democrat?

      I call Bullshit.

      1. My charitable interpretation is that it was a typo. If not, then he doesn’t know much about gays.

      2. Kind of like the “Catholics for choice”, someone bothered to check on the backgrounds of its listed leaders and found out the almost none of them were actually Catholics.

      3. Huh? I know some gay republicans – I dunno if they’re “log cabin republicans” but they definitely vote for Team R.

    2. Yeah, I’m afraid your analysis is pretty spot on.

  7. America, fuck yeah! Oh, I hope this doesn’t get overturned. Eat shit, heteronormativity!

    1. Would you like fries with that?

    2. Thing is, the way it was originally supposed to work was don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue. That last bit made all the difference in the world. So how did they get from there to “investigation”? I think when they enacted the statute, they omitted the “don’t pursue” part that had been the regulation or executive order. With “don’t pursue”, it was a very sensible policy. Without “don’t pursue”, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” parts become spurs to snooping.

  8. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10…..ef=science

    Threadjack, but this is really interesting.

    1. Nice to have confirmation of what I already knew, Child Protective Services are worthless at best.

      Pat Benatar almost got it right –
      Hell is for foster children.

      1. What is depressing is that this study won’t change a thing. CPS will continue to waste billions and intrude on innocent people’s lives in return for no benefit for children. Cargo cults never die I guess.

        1. When children are removed from homes because they’re being sexually assaulted just to be put in foster homes where they’re sexually assaulted, you lose a little faith in the system.

  9. I did enjoy the link that Instapundit had to the Times.

    Studies say that Child Protective Services doesn’t do anything noticeable, except possibly make mothers who are visited depressed. Conclusion: We must need more of it then!

    1. If you build enough control towers and runways, the planes will come. A large section of our intelligentsia and policy makers live in a world devoid of empirical analysis. Be it CPS, or educational theory, or Keynesian economics, results just don’t matter.

      1. Chalk it up to years of public schooling that teach us that “feeling good about what we’re thinking” is paramount to knowing what we’re thinking is actually right (demonstrated by empirical proof, whether we like it or not).

    2. The issue is the lead author is a pediatrician:

      Dr. Kristine A. Campbell, the lead author of the study, said that it may be too easy to blame Child Protective Services. “I believe that C.P.S. has a critical role,” she said. “As a pediatrician, when I’m there in the middle of the night with a child who has been beaten up, I need them. But we have to look at other systems that can really create a safety net for these children.”

      You’re never going to get a pediatrician, much less one in academics, to advocate ending an intrusive government program.

  10. So the military can have grinding now?

  11. Tell me again how Democrats are better on civil liberties?

    1. Hey remember when they tried to pass a defense spending bill that repealed DADT? Ya the Republicans voted it down.

      1. Repubs were douchebags for voting it down and dems were douchebags AND cynical for attaching it to the defense bill KNOWING it would be voted down.

        1. Large sections of Democratic voters despise gays. Who is more important to the Democratic Party, gays or blacks and Hispanics? Who is more important to the GOP, gays or social conservatives? It is really amazing gays have done as well as they have politically.

          1. Two incomes and no kids means lots of money and time to influence politics.

            Nothing wrong with that… I’m just saying.

            Oh, and speaking of the gay, Reason should really do a piece on San Diego Councilmember Carl DeMaio.

          2. Hispanics don’t despise gays. A majority of Hispanics are for gay marriage in California.

            1. That is not how they voted on Prop 8. And do you have a link to backup this fantasy of yours?

          3. “In” gays do extraordinarily well politically.

      2. Just goes to show how Team Blue would rather pander to their base than improve their lot.

        “We…uh…didn’t actually get DADT repealed like we said we would…but we got a symbolic gesture that proves Republicans are meanie doodie heads! Vote for us?”

      3. If they really wanted to repeal DADT they would’ve voted on that issue alone instead of attaching it to some other bill in order to play stupid games.

        1. Playing games with legislation. Well I never!

      4. First of all, Obama does not need Congress to repeal DADT, he has the authority to change the policy as the Commander in Chief without the authorization from Congress. Secondly, if the Democracts ACTUALLY wanted to repeal DADT, they would not have attached it a spending bill, rather would have voted on it as a single issue – they had the votes WITHOUT a single Republican voting in favor of it. It was a game they played to make Republicans look bad at the expense of continuing to screw over gay service-members.

        1. The only part of that you got right was the attachment of DADT to the poison pill DREAM act. Way to go, Harry!

          You’re still a moron on the limits of Executive Power.

  12. This ruling won’t stand. It will take an act of Congress to end the inanity of DADT.

  13. A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don’t ask, don’t tell policy on Tuesday.

    So . . . they have to ask now???

    Sargent Bilko: “Son, before you sign up, a federal judge has mandated that I ask you the following: Are you a fag?”

    Imagine that happening . . .

    1. Sargeant. Sorry. Long day…

      1. Actually it’s “sergeant”.

    2. Maybe it will be in code. Sgt. Bilko: Can you fart the tune “Halls of Montezuma”

      1. Potential Inductee: (takes crao on Bilko’s desk)
        Sgt. Bilko: WTF???
        Potential Inductee: All professional clear their throats before they sing.

        (It’s a joke from my childhood (circa, 5th grade))

        1. crao = crap

    3. I don’t have to imagine – I was actually asked that question when I joined in 1979. I was also asked if I’d ever fucked a farm animal. Literally. I wish I’d had the snappy response of “I’m not a small time small town Kansas City Manager”

      You do bring up a good point – which is that if DADT is tossed on Constitutional grounds, it reverts to the previous iteration – which means game on for the holy rollers to start asking everyone who they like to diddle and what positions they prefer.

  14. This is a good test for the White House. If the Obama DOJ doesn’t appeal the case, they prove they support the repeal. If the DOJ appeals the ruling, than it proves the White House is full of crap on this. This is a good test to see where they really stand.

    1. They are going to appeal. And yes they were always full of crap on it. But, can you blame them? It would hurt them politically to undo it. And it is not like gays are going to stop voting Democrat anytime soon.

      All I can say to gays is that it sucks to be a cheap date.

      1. The admin. has always said it would prefer Congress deal with this. But it seems like just letting this ruling stand would be less politically challenging than trying (and probably failing, again) to get Congress to pass a repeal.

        Obama has said many, many times that he favors repeal. I don’t think he’s trying to pull wool over anyone’s eyes. What would be the point?

        1. And he has done nothing to repeal it even though he could. And his DOJ is going to appeal this and it will be overturned. And gays like you will still be making excuses for him and still voting for him come 2012.

          I will Obama credit for one thing. He really seems to have a good grasp on just how stupid people like you are.

          1. How exactly could Obama have repealed a law?

            Remember, they recently tried to repeal it, but the Republicans voted it down.

            What exactly are you claiming is going on? Obama is a secret homophobe and likes DADT?

            1. He is CnC. He has the authority to tell the military to stop enforcing the the prohibition and stop putting people out of the military for that UCMJ violation.

              No. Tony he is not a homophobe. He just care about you. He knows you are going to vote for him no matter what he does. So he worries about getting other people’s support. And he is right. It is the smart play.

              1. I believe DADT was always a year 2 agenda item. Congress failed to repeal it.

                And I don’t think he would have been able to circumvent DADT via his authority as commander-in-chief. Maybe, but certainly not in a politically feasible way.

                1. If he can’t politically repeal it as CnC, how can he do it otherwise? Isn’t that just another way of saying he doesn’t want to pay the political price to do it? He is just not that into Tony.

                  1. I wish I knew how to quit you, DADT.

                    1. Not everything is all about Obama!

                    2. Obama ignoring gays isn’t about Obama?

                      It must be the gays fault then. They didn’t want it enough.

                    3. This issue isn’t all about Obama. It’s irritating for libertarians to be bitching that Obama isn’t asserting more executive authority.

                    4. Uhh… This isn’t about grabbing new executive powers that aren’t found in the constitution – it’s an issue of either A. eliminating an unconstitutional provision, or B. simply unilaterally changing policy as Commander in Chief, which last I checked, was actually in the enumerated powers of the president section of the US Constitution.

                      Asserting MORE executive authority is what we’ve been bitching about him doing in other contexts.

                      Do you not understand the difference between say, a president claiming he has the authority to go to war with whomever he wants and a president simply changing the way the military is structured? No act of congress needed here.

              2. He is CnC. He has the authority to tell the military to stop enforcing the the prohibition and stop putting people out of the military for that UCMJ violation.

                Which law authorizes him to suspend enforcement of DADT?

        2. Just like he favors gay marriage? No…wait…

      2. Agree. Though the way to have their cake and eat it too is make all sorts of noise as if they were going to appeal it prior to the election and then “miss” the filing deadline.

        1. They would then be killed by the incoming Republican Congress. It would make the thing a political issue again. The thing to do is appeal it. Then when the appeals court overturns it, the issue goes away. And people like Tony blame the appeals court not you and vote for you anyway.

      3. The National Review thinks they’ll appeal, for optics, and then throw the fight, which is just as effective.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-ed-whelan

        1. Not really. This is a political loser for Democrats. It kills them with Independent and wins them support from people like Tony who will vote for them no matter what. Better to win the case and have the whole thing go away.

          I think betting the gay community will suck it up and vote for you no matter what is a pretty good bet.

          1. John if you can stop implying that gay people are mindless sheep for a second, realize that perhaps we vote Democratic because the GOP is populated by crazy theocrats who think we are evil. Just a guess.

            1. Maybe you do. But you do nonetheless, so Obama will pay no price for ignoring you.

              1. Gays may not matter that much in terms of numbers of voters, but they are a big source of money for the Dems.

                1. The money is a good point.

                2. Gays and lesbians don’t often vote their gayness or lesbianity. It doesn’t seem to be a high priority for them compared to other political concerns they have as indivudals.

            2. “the GOP is populated by crazy theocrats who think we are evil”

              And the Congressional Black Caucus can’t wait for you to start dating their sons.

              1. Damn joke names.

              2. I’m not sure what the point of this business is about how the blacks and mexicans are anti-gay, but it’s unsavory. There are gay blacks and mexicans, you know. GOP apologists are just mad that they can’t win them over on religious bigotry like they have poor white people.

                1. hahaha, this thread is a goldmine of dumb Tony posts.

                2. You didn’t happen to read any of the news on Prop 8 in California when that was killed in large part thanks to an almost unanimous crowd of black & hispanic voters who appear to be remarkably homophobic, did you? Nah… Of course not. Even if you had read that in a paper, I’m sure you’d have dismissed it because Team D can’t have people in it who are anti-gay.

                  1. Yes I’m aware of that myth. The GOP still ain’t gonna get minorities to vote for them.

            3. You mean the same GOP which contains the gay folks who sued the government over DADT policies and won? Hmm… Confusing.

          2. How does it kill them with independents when 70% are for repealing DADT? A majority of Republicans are for repealing it too. It’s only the politicians in Congress that are against it in any significant numbers.

        2. They can’t just “throw the fight”. Military policy, not matter how stupid, can’t be subject to judicial fiat. What policy will be found to violate the Fifth Amendment next time? The executive has to fight it. And, they generally win in thse cases.

          1. Military policy, not matter how stupid, can’t be subject to judicial fiat.

            Yes it can. If it becomes military policy to house soldiers in private residences without the owner’s consent the judiciary can and should end that policy on 3rd Amendment grounds. If the military breaks the law or violates the Constitution it is subject to the law. The military is not above the law.

            1. That is not military policy. And, there is an amendment specifically preventing any government branch form instituting that policy. However, the military violates soldiers civil rights all the time. I know, i’ve been there. Try to argue your first amendment rights with a drill sergeant. Try to tell your commander that you won’t go up the hill because the fifth amendment prevents the taking of your life without due process. It is your oath that takes many “rights” away.

              I think DADT is silly, but the reason it was created was to protect gays in the military. I am not as sanguine as many seem to be that gays openly in the military will not cause significant problems. But I think they can, and should be overcome. It won’t be easy, but neither was intergrating blacks.

              1. rac, you’re spot on about the intent of DADT, to provide protection for gays. This is a ‘win’ for having gays in the military only from the hard way perspective, as if this is upheld, things revert to the gay witch hunt policy that preceded it.

    2. The DOJ will appeal regardless, b/c their alignment is Lawful Stupid.

      1. “Lawful Stupid” – classic. 🙂

      2. That can’t be an Illuminati alignment, because there is no opposite to Criminal.

  15. speedos all around

  16. I’m looking forward to Bill Clinton denouncing the pro-gay Republican agenda.

  17. Guaranteed stay at the circuit level.

  18. So, Republicans are for “activist” judges when it suits their agenda? Who would’ve thought?

    1. How is this activist?

    2. That doesn’t make sense. The definition of “activist” is “doing something I disagree with.”

  19. How is the repeal of DADT pro-gay. Without it can’t the military just prosecute gays for conduct unbecoming?

    1. But that would actually make sense. As you know, government is not allowed to make sense. Who knows what would happen? One of those evil gays might bleed over a good, red-blooded, heterosexual American infantryman and subject him to a fate worse than death, maiming, or Tricare: infection with teh gheyness.

      1. No not really – there has to be an unbecoming act. The vast majority of serving gays are either celebate or EXTREMELY discrete. What does make it bad for the gay service members is that lacking DADT, it reverts to the previous policy, which was basically a no limit hunting season for the holy roller anti-gay jerkwads.

        1. The unbecoming act can be pretty much what they want it to be.

          “”What does make it bad for the gay service members is that lacking DADT, it reverts to the previous policy, which was basically a no limit hunting season for the holy roller anti-gay jerkwads.”””

          That’s what I’m thinking. The DADT was the military’s way of being gay friendly.

  20. Tony,

    The correct way for the Dems with their solid majority in the House of Reps, Senate and Dem president to go about eliminating DADT is for the Dems to offer a single-issue bill changing the UCMJ. The Dems only need to pick off a couple of Republicans, which they would, to prevent filibustering. The Dems have had 21 months to do this. The fact that they have not clearly demonstrates that the Dems are not serious and are engaging in political theatre only. You and anyone else that donated or voted for the Democratic Party based on their “gay friendly agenda” have been used in the same way the Republicans have been using the religious nut-jobs for years. You are nothing but a checkbook and a guaranteed vote. If you want the Democrats to respond to your concerns, start withholding your checks and vote.

    As a veteran of the US Navy (9 years active), I have always found DADT to be humorous. Prior to Clinton making a big deal about DADT, the de facto policy was already DADT, at least in the Navy. While anecdotal, the only time I ever heard of someone being put out of the service for being gay was as a secondary offense they piled on after-the-fact and was not the reason for the initial investigation.

    ?because the GOP is populated by crazy theocrats who think we are evil.

    Oh bullshit! I am an agnostic and would not think of entering a church, synagogue or mosque except for funerals and weddings. I also identify with the GOP and have only voted for two Democrats in my life (voting since 1976). What I will grant you is that the GOP is populated with a bunch of people just like me that just don’t care one-way or the other about anything about gays. This does not make me homophobic or evil, I just don’t care. I have enough problems of my own to be worrying about yours.

    1. I would have been more than happy for Congress to have repealed it. I’m not sure they had the votes. Remember, they have to have a supermajority in the Senate for everything.

      I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Nobody asked you to weigh in. I think we just have too much agreement on here–that DADT should go away (then you can have your gay-free peace)–and the libertarians are just bitching about Obama because it’s what they do.

      1. Forgot to reply to this, Nobody asked you to weigh in

        Piss off

      2. I would have been more than happy for Congress to have repealed it.

        Are you sure about that? I mean, it is the way it’s SUPPOSED to work, as opposed to your odd vision of Chief Executive Skippy exercising dictatorial power and ruling by fiat. . .

        1. Hey moron, that’s exactly what Obama is NOT doing and what everyone is bitching about. I repeat: not everything is all about Obama.

  21. Remember, they have to have a supermajority in the Senate for everything.

    Try reading comprehension, I did remember, “The Dems only need to pick off a couple of Republicans, which they would, to prevent filibustering.”

    My point is very simple. The law the military operates to is the UCMJ. If one expects the military to operate in a different matter, then change the UCMJ. Don’t play games tying the changes to unrelated bills, just change the UCMJ.

    …the libertarians are just bitching about Obama because it’s what they do there is so much to bitch about

  22. Tony, I don’t believe you actually are gay. Gays I know are generally intelligent, can read, can comprehend, tend to respond to actions over words, and don’t just whine all the time… you know kinda like a lot of the heteros I know.

    … oh yeah, nobody asked me to weigh in either and I’m bitching about Obama because I can… just like I bitched about every president since Eisenhower.

    1. I don’t think Tony is actually gay either. I’ve never met a gay person that was as abjectly as stupid as Tony.

  23. Anyone stupid enough to want to join the military should be able to.

    I know it’s a cliche, but it’s still true.

    If I were gay, I would actually be grateful for DADT – it offers an easy way out in the case of a draft

    1. Many of the countries that allow gays in the military did so because of conscription.

      There was enough of a stigma against being gay back in the days when we had a draft that claiming to be gay was rarely used as a way to avoid being inducted.

  24. Most pro-gay President ever!

    Obama’s Justice Department Appeals Defense Of Marriage Rulings: http://lezgetreal.com/2010/10/…..e-rulings/

    1. Most pro-gay President ever!

      Obama’s Justice Department Appeals Defense Of Marriage Rulings: http://lezgetreal.com/2010/10/…..e-rulings/

      Good.

      They had better defend DOMA when Bishop v. Oklahoma goes before the Tenth Circuit.

  25. let’s all go kick some Taliban butt. Let them know who’s coming after them.

    1. Homosexuals drenched in porcine blood?

      That’s so fucking sweet, it gives me a heteroboner.

  26. Now that we know who they are, the easier it will be to shove our guns up their enemy asses and kill them. When Obama is out of office we will grow an industry replacing and repairing all of the damage and humiliation Obama and our enemies brought to America and getting us all back to being America again.

    1. Isn’t your named spelled Amerikkka?

  27. I wasn’t aware that military discipline was subject to the Bill of Rights.

    1. I wasn’t aware that military discipline was subject to the Bill of Rights.

      Under constitutional analysis, it is already a given that maintaining military discipline is a compelling government interest.

    2. It is, and it isn’t. That’s the reason for the existence of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The concepts of the BoR are included (such as 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination), but there are ‘adjustments’ for military circumstance – such as restrictions to the 1st re speech – can’t badmouth the chain of command sort of thing.

  28. Gays in the military.


    Lawyers and politician and their clients or constituents are keenly aware that the best way to have major changes in a society is to place any individual or group in the special category of “A victim” if you’re going to change any time-honored tradition in The United States of America!!!

    The gay agenda has a progression of thoughts: First there is the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that introduces the gay verbiage that implies undeserved “Shame” experienced by the gays; then the gays progress to the “Do ask, and do tell”, which projects a more accepting view of the gay lifestyle; then they promote their interpersonal romantic gay alternative relationships as just as natural, normal, productive and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle; and finally the gay community will demand that a law be passed making homosexual marriages legal.

    One person compared the homosexual lifestyle as like being left-handed in a society of where 92% of the population is right-handed. However, two individuals, one writing with their left hand and the other person using their right hand both accomplish the same task of equally good penmanship. On the other hand, gays and lesbians can’t produce or have a family. There are gays and lesbians Christian who would do a better job of raising children over some traditional male / female couples who are dysfunctional, spiritually or emotionally.

    But males bonding with females will always be a more preferred and acceptable lifestyle for the majority because they produce children and grandchildren etc (a family unit)!

    The naked truth is that all humans have relational problems, regardless of their sexual orientation; simply because we are all self-centered, ego-centric and put our self interest above all others. The point I am trying to make is that so many straight pious individuals (especially Christians) will condemn or make-fun-of homosexuals and their lifestyle; and completely ignore the fact that straight people also struggle with life, and straight people also offend God and others in what they think, do and say.

    When homosexuals can’t get total or unconditional acceptance or approval of their gay and lesbian lifestyle or marriage from their heterosexual family members, friends, co-workers, school mates or teachers, religious leaders, or neighbors; then this lawsuit against the U.S. Military opens a door to promote and encourage all Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legal and have equal status of male to female lifestyle and marriage.

    Sexual orientation is a non-work related issue: and the military should never give deference to race, religion or sexual orientation!

    My hope and prayer is that The Government of the U.S.A. will continue to ONLY require that a person’s mental and physical abilities be up for consideration in order to determine whether a person is qualified to join any branch of the U.S military!!! This is a desperate attempt to accomplish homosexual’s future goal of sanctioned gay and lesbian marriages in all 50 states of the U.S.

    Sincerely,
    ArthurTrafford.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.