Judge Blocks DADT
Gay rights championed by Republicans. Obama Justice Department to appeal.
I didn’t know there was much more room under that bus.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 13th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Same issue, but two separate cases. The injunction is in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America and Robert Gates, Obama is appealing Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Still, it’s a good indication of the administration’s attitude, and what will probably happen in Log Cabin Republicans, too.
And why shouldn’t they appeal it? It’s not like he has to worry about gays suddenly voting Republican because of it. The longer the Dems can put off repealing DADT, the longer they can wave it in front of the gays to encourage them to get out and vote against the Republicans.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:06 am
The most likely occurance is a dismissal based on the lack of standing of the plaintiffs. Also at issue is the ability of the judge to issue an injunction valid outside of her district when other federal judges have ruled the other way in other courts. Of course the big issue is that DOD now will not have a choice of discharging gays, they will have to proceed to court martial instead. What’s better – an honorable discharge or a UCMJ conviction?
October 13th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… This is not a matter for the courts, and it should not be decided by congress or the President.
This is something that should be determined by the highest ranking career members of our military. If they feel that they need to ban gays from openly serving in the military then thats fine.
This is not about someone being denied the right to pursue a career, this is about national defense and what it takes to produce the best fighting force that we possibly can. If they feel that they need to discriminate, then let them….. Gays, blacks, whites, women, christians, who cares?
They already pick and choose based on other phsyical, mental, and health requirements… why does this one particular criteria matter so much? What next? Are we gonna have an Americans with Disabilities lawsuit because people in wheel chairs are not given reasonable accomidations on the battle field?
All this PC crap needs to stop.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:51 am
“We’re going to need a bigger bus…”
October 13th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Seems to me that if DADT is out, recruiters should ask and potential recruits should tell.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Gunmart,
Seems that attitude was prevalent about blacks not too long ago. Those “highest ranking career members” were wrong then and they are wrong about gays now.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Keep DADT on the books and depress the gay votes among dems? Win win.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Reputo-
Not so. Our country was a very differeent place back then, and IMO the men and women of the military were probably not ready to serve along side blacks. Was it worng? Hell yeah. Is it wrong to discriminate against gays now? Hell yeah.
However, it is the job of the highest ranking members of military to make these tough decisions and decide what will help them produce the best fighting force that they can. If that means discrimination, then thats fine by me. Discriminate against who ever then want to.
There are many who say that having gays serve openly will hurt recruiting, affect morale, and cause enough infighting and other problems that it would be detrimental. I dont know, but I can see that it might be a possibility… I am not a military man, and I have never been in combat. I do know that I would never volunteer to join up if it meant that I had to take a shower with a bunch of gay guys…. and I certainly would not want the guy fighting beside me in combat to be there only for the sake of affirmative action.
Like I said, it was wrong to descriminate against blacks, but it was probably the right decision at the time based on where our nation and its beliefs were at the time. It would have been a powerful distraction if the military had to worry more about controling lynchings then their war time efforts
October 13th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I do know that I would never volunteer to join up if it meant that I had to take a shower with a bunch of gay guys
Funny, I heard that somewhere before…
“I will never eat in a restaurant with a black man” or
“I don’t want to take my kids to McDonald’s and have to worry that the guy behind me is carrying a gun”
Bigotry always seems to sound the same, no matter what the prejudice.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Gunmart: The current defacto policy is Don’t Care, Drive On.
This would run just like black integration in the military. If the President has the balls to order it, it would happen. Some officers would footdrag and get cashiered, but it would happen.
Obama really is throwing gays under the bus here.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
DADT, Employment non-discrimination, et al are big money makers for Dems. Lord knows why. They have never done anything for Gays/Lesbians.
Kristopher, it doesn’t work like that with DADT, mostly because of the mess Clinton left in his wake. He tried to do it by fiat, and Congress jumped in and passed a law: namely, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
In addition to DADT, the Uniform Code of Military Justice would also have to change.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Gunmart said: “I do know that I would never volunteer to join up if it meant that I had to take a shower with a bunch of gay guys”
The gays are in the military today – they are just hiding from the homophobes like you. (The military keeps throwing them out – hence the court cases.)
And thanks for pointing out the echos of past injustice, Divemedic.
“Unit cohesion” was the reason the military brass gave for why the services couldn’t be integrated along racial lines. The sound of bigotry hasn’t changed.
And if you don’t want to volunteer, Gunmart, don’t. I am sure there were a lot of bigots who refused to volunteer for a multi-ethnic military when the services were integrated. Probably still are a few who won’t serve because of that.
October 14th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Ummmmmmmmm…. I never said DADT was not discrimination. My argument is “so what”. Does being PC really trump the ability of the military to recruit at its highest level and perform in a cohesive manor? I dont think it does. I think national security ranks a little higher up the ladder then if Joe Blow (pun intended) wants a career in the military.
Also, my greater point was that ending DADT should not be forced upon the military by a judge, congress or the president. When the highest ranking career members of the military say that the culture and climate of the military are ready to end DADT, then it should be ended. It should not be forced upon them for the sake of politics.
Also, call me a bigot all you want. I have two gay friends that will tell you otherwise. My point was that you can easily make the case that ending DADT earlier then it should be could hurt recruiting.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
If we had followed that reasoning, we would have had a segregated military probably into the 80’s. Just like with integration, the “highest ranking career members of the military” seem to be unwilling to even consider the issue objectively. They hear the word “gay” and their immediate response is to stick their fingers in their ears while repeatedly shouting “No!” at the top of their lungs.
Like I said in comments to the other post, while we should always give strong deference to the military’s leadership on military matters, the civilian leadership has not only the right but the duty to intervene when there are indications that the military leadership is not willing to consider actual facts. DADT appears to be one of those situations.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Jake-
Actually there are several of the highest ranking members of the military who are saying that we should end DADT. No, its not unanimous, but there are a few of them who think it should end.
Also, dont get me wrong… Yes the military should without a doubt be subject to our civilian leadership. I just think this is an issue where we should defer to their judgement on the matter – if its ending DADT or not.
BTW – IMHO its pretty hard to make the case that the push to end DADT is isn’t 100% political. Like was said on the other post, no one ever talks about “why” we should end it. They just harp on fairness and shout down any opposing view point as bigoted
October 14th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Zendo Deb: Officers still take orders from the President.
Unless they want to be passed for promotions or stationed at Thule Air Base, they will conform.
If Obama wanted this, he would get it.
October 15th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Sorry – we have civilian control of the military. If the President commands (or congress legislates), the military follows. The military leaders may express their opinions, but there is no sphere of activity in which the military leadership can veto a decision of the civilian government.
Whether this particular issue is one where the judiciary can make policy have no idea. In one sense, and at least theoretically, the federal judiciary is independent of politics and is free to consider the issues dispassionately.