Don't Ask Don't Tell Upheld by Supreme Court

**Cricket** · 06-09-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier's challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration. http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,00.html?imw=Y

Quote:

The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, a move that effectively leaves it to the Obama administration to resolve the issue. The court sided with the administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though President Obama is on record as opposing it. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world...on_t_tell.html

Quote:

Obama and his congressional allies now look as if they are avoiding the issue all together while they seek support for major health care changes, immigration and other initiatives, and are appearing fearful of aggravating voters with what they perceive as a hot button issue… http://lezgetreal.com/?p=14462

There are so many controversies within this topic that I am not even sure where to begin, so we are going to leave things fairly open as to which direction we go with it. I am curious about the role Obama plays in all of this considering his vow before election to get rid of the policy.

If you are going to participate in this debate, I am going to first ask that you review our special rules for the politics forum. I will be expecting you to back up your thoughts with your reason WHY you feel that way. Additionally, if you state something as fact, please provide evidence.

Play nice! I will not tolerate disrespect in this thread or anywhere in the community.

Atom · 06-09-2009, 02:17 PM

I think that this is a very minor issue compared to another issue that Obama has chosen to avoid, which is legalization of marijuana. Very minor indeed. Even to the point that I have no further comment.

Atom · 06-09-2009, 03:29 PM

This of course is not to demean the topic as I'm sure you know, Cricket, but simply an opportunity to express my disappointment with Obama on the avoidance issue in general in a specific way that does not entail me starting my own topic, and without any wish or intent to change this one.

And if your thinking that I said that I had no further comment, it was true. I didn't at the time.

Allen Farlow · 06-09-2009, 04:29 PM

Government legislating morality. Good luck with that. You can make a law to say that we cannot do something but that doesn't mean there won't be those who still do it...

I don't pee on the sidewalk because I don't want everyone looking at my willy, not because a law says I can't. But if nobody's around and I really gotta go, call me a criminal!

In a perfect world discrimination would not exist, but long as we are dealing with humans there will always be someone looking down there nose at others disapprovingly.

I believe a lot of it is about control. I mean, heavens! What would come of this world if gays and lesbians were allowed to just live and work wherever they want?!

(It would probably be a better world...and that scares some people.)

corneo · 06-10-2009, 04:58 AM

The public seems to take this law as a great set back to the military, the truth is the military has it own laws to cover gay activities.

Here's a site for military laws

I was in the military when this law was passed during Clinton reign and we laugh at it. Gay's have always been in the military and function with no problems. What this law did do is cause other laws to be passed in the military which now gives a harrasher punishment for being gay.

Fraternization

Quote:

In July 1998, Defense Secretary William Cohen directed the services to "adopt uniform, clear and readily understandable" fraternization policies. Cohen stated that the current separate policies were "corrosive to morale particularly as we move toward an increasingly joint environment."

Basically, if your gay and it's proven you can get a dishonorable discharge (and) federal prison time for fraternization.

Before this change you were quietly discharged.

As far as Obama word? If his mouth is moving, he's lying.

**Cricket** · 06-10-2009, 06:08 AM

Interesting quote by Lt. Dan Choi

Quote:

Discrimination and cutting out people who are capable during a time of war shortchanges our soldiers. When we look at the 13,000 soldiers who have been kicked out because of DADT, we don't look at them as the victims. The victims are those 13,000 units that have been rendered less capable, and we're not supporting them." http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--...ADT-case-video

corneo · 06-10-2009, 07:28 AM

Interesting quote but not what the military is worried about.

The military isn't worried about gays, they're worried about men freaking out over the gays that are serving in the military. Causing rebelling in the ranks of the men.
As long as there is controversy over gay life style, you can't have this issue in the military.

Until you get more public acceptance for gay life style. You can't have them openly in the military.

**Cricket** · 06-10-2009, 08:52 AM

Perhaps during time of war is not the best time either?

Allen Farlow · 06-10-2009, 09:33 AM

It's looking more and more like the U.S. might be dragged kicking and screaming into a war between North and South Korea, assuming that little idiot running North Korea isn't just bluffing again.

If the U.S. finds itself short on manpower do you think the government will not reinstate the draft?

If it reinstates the draft, do you think the government will refuse people who are openly gay?

Personally, I don't care what they tend toward sexually, if you have two legs, two arms and a brain, you can pack a rifle.

And any soldier who has a problem working next to a homosexual better get over it real quick because he might need that gay guy to carry his wounded rear end to safety.

A soldier is a soldier. Period. You don't have to like them as friends but you are Government Issue and your butt belongs to the U.S.A. and you WILL serve and protect your fellow troops, gay or not. You WILL get along with them, in camp or not, unless you prefer court martial and time in Leavenworth.

Just one more thing to be taught in basic training.

**Muddy** · 06-10-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

...your butt belongs to the U.S.A....

Well that should settle the issue right there.

ranter · 06-11-2009, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muddy

Well that should settle the issue right there.

Now that is hilarious

Allen Farlow · 06-11-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

...your butt belongs to the U.S.A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muddy

Well that should settle the issue right there.

No pun intended...

**Cricket** · 06-10-2009, 09:53 AM

And sleeping quarters?

Allen Farlow · 06-10-2009, 11:47 AM

Would we need to segregate the gays from the straights? I don't think so. The threat of a court martial for behavior unbecoming should be enough to prevent any, uh, 'personal contact' from happening. And if that doesn't work, there's always the very real threat of their getting the crap beat out of them by several other GIs who disagree with the way they are behaving.

So many people I have talked with about this subject have this crazy idea that gays are sexual dynamos, that they just can't control themselves in public like 'normal people' can. They think gays are promiscuous and can't have a relationship where they dedicate themselves to another, as a married couple would.

Married people can control themselves and so can gays.

Gays are more than aware of the way straights feel about them. Peer pressure from one gay to another would be used to keep them in line.

Also the aspect of being naked in communal showers would be something that would not take long to get used to regardless of sexual orientation.

Compare it to a nudist resort. At first, to a noobie, it's really something to walk around outside naked, especially in front of everyone else. But it doesn't take long for that to wear off, and sexual excitation is strongly frowned upon by the members as a whole.' Before long, running around naked is just another day.

If a gay man is continually looking at certain parts of his fellow soldiers bodies in an inappropriate manner when they are in the shower, the soldiers should report him to their CO and not take it into their own hands. Let the CO use the channels set up to handle instances like that.

Of course, if the CO won't do his job and reprimand the soldier for his poor conduct, I'm sure his fellow soldiers won't have much of a problem with taking care of it themselves, up to and including his 'accidently' dieing on the battlefield.

That alone should be enough to keep even the most unruly gay soldier in line. If not, his unfortunate death certainly will.

And just as gay soldiers would be reprimanded for bad conduct, the same would apply to straight soldiers who have a personal problem with being around gays. Harrassment because of sexual orientation should carry serious penalties, up to and including court martial.

I don't see any need to segregate. People will realize where the boundaries lie and the punishment for exceeding it.

Gay soldiers performed their duties throughout WW I, WW II, Korea and Vietnam. They knew enough to keep their sexuality to themselves. Why would today be any different?

John Scott · 06-10-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Would we need to segregate the gays from the straights? I don't think so.

By the argument you offer, we need not segregate men from women. Let them sleep in the same quarters, shower in the same quarters, etc.

Really? I don't think so.

**Cricket** · 06-10-2009, 02:37 PM

But wouldn't segregating gay men together be the same thing as not segregating men and women? It all sounds pretty complicated if ya think about it too much. Maybe there is a point to the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy?

Atom · 06-10-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cricket

But wouldn't segregating gay men together be the same thing as not segregating men and women? It all sounds pretty complicated if ya think about it too much. Maybe there is a point to the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy?

I was going to ask you what that referred to (don't ask don't tell). I have no idea how to relate that.

**Cricket** · 06-10-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

I was going to ask you what that referred to (don't ask don't tell). I have no idea how to relate that.

It's the current policy concerning gay people in the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

Atom · 06-10-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cricket

It's the current policy concerning gay people in the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

I see now, thanks, Cricket.

John Scott · 06-10-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cricket

But wouldn't segregating gay men together be the same thing as not segregating men and women? It all sounds pretty complicated if ya think about it too much. Maybe there is a point to the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy?

Good point. When I was in prison, there was a guy who always checked out other guys in the shower and made comments. He seemed to be really hard up and desperate, but harmless enough and we all just laughed it off. But if he was just a tad bit more obnoxious then he was, I think it would have been a very ugly situation.