Activist Judge? Or time to stop the unconstitutional discrimination?

[DeletedUser22575]

DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) is on its way out one way or the other.

Earlier this year Congress once again played politics with this issue ignoring the fact that their own political agendas and pandering to their reelection campaigns should not take precedence over a much needed intellectual debate and vote based on the fact constitutionally DADT violates the rights of those who are gay.

Your thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101013/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsmilitarygayscourt

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085992...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN3aWxsb2JhbWFzZWU-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101014/ts_nm/us_usa_military_gays_1

 

[DeletedUser]

Get rid of DADT, and allow Gay Marriage.
But, it's not a gender, and it's not a race.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

Get rid of DADT, and allow Gay Marriage.
But, it's not a gender, and it's not a race.

But it is a discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[DeletedUser]

But it is a discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It's a nice little trade off. You won't be able to get all these people over onto the boat 100%, so why not just let the homosexual community have a good deal out of it? Right now, they are pressuring for Marriage rights and also the right to serve in the military openly. After that, they will have equal rights to ordinary heterosexuals, why give them extra rights? It's not about whether someone has a penis or vagina, it's not about the color of someones skin, it's about ordinary people not wanting to be in the norm. If a white guy and a white woman couple gets mad at two white gay guys couple and doesn't want to invite them to a party because of that, then, so be it. Society isn't ready for that big of a jump yet.

It shouldn't be covered as a hate crime based on 'sexual orientation'. It's something you can resist showing. A black man can not resist being black, for he is. A woman can not resist being a woman, for she is. A gay man can resist being gay. Allow him gay marriage, allow him to serve in the military openly. But piss on this free ride for his orientation. Next thing we know, calling Christians "fundies" will be out of the question. People get to play the discrimination card too much as it is.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

It's a nice little trade off. You won't be able to get all these people over onto the boat 100%, so why not just let the homosexual community have a good deal out of it? Right now, they are pressuring for Marriage rights and also the right to serve in the military openly. After that, they will have equal rights to ordinary heterosexuals, why give them extra rights? It's not about whether someone has a penis or vagina, it's not about the color of someones skin, it's about ordinary people not wanting to be in the norm. If a white guy and a white woman couple gets mad at two white gay guys couple and doesn't want to invite them to a party because of that, then, so be it. Society isn't ready for that big of a jump yet.

It shouldn't be covered as a hate crime based on 'sexual orientation'. It's something you can resist showing. A black man can not resist being black, for he is. A woman can not resist being a woman, for she is. A gay man can resist being gay. Allow him gay marriage, allow him to serve in the military openly. But piss on this free ride for his orientation. Next thing we know, calling Christians "fundies" will be out of the question. People get to play the discrimination card too much as it is.

Actually I do agree with you on the hate crime issue.

And I don't think gays should have "extra rights" but they should have the same rights as everyone else...no more..but not an iota less either.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually I do agree with you on the hate crime issue.

And I don't think gays should have "extra rights" but they should have the same rights as everyone else...no more..but not an iota less either.

Give them the right to gay marriage, and the right to open military service, and bingo. You've got the same rights and the issue is solved.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

Give them the right to gay marriage, and the right to open military service, and bingo. You've got the same rights and the issue is solved.

Correct. End of the story when that happens.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well the judges decision really doesn't amount to much. I mean really they could try the same case again and get different results easily. It won't change much if anything, the only way anything major will happen is if it goes to the supreme court, which can and will take many years. There is some sort of study going on by the pentagon about repealing it already that will be due in December. So really they should have waited for what that report said about it. That being said I am all for just about anyone who want to serve in the military to be allowed to do so. As I see it the judge is trying to be the "one" to end it all as sort of a claim to fame. This issue is clearly progressing very far without her and there pushing this issue as hard as she is trying to do will do it no favors, in general people don't like things shoved down their throat. On the marriage thing I guess it could turn into an argument of is marrying a right? I really don't think it is but it doesn't really bother me if gays get married or not. I really could not be more indifferent on it.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

Well the judges decision really doesn't amount to much. I mean really they could try the same case again and get different results easily. It won't change much if anything, the only way anything major will happen is if it goes to the supreme court, which can and will take many years. There is some sort of study going on by the pentagon about repealing it already that will be due in December. So really they should have waited for what that report said about it. That being said I am all for just about anyone who want to serve in the military to be allowed to do so. As I see it the judge is trying to be the "one" to end it all as sort of a claim to fame. This issue is clearly progressing very far without her and there pushing this issue as hard as she is trying to do will do it no favors, in general people don't like things shoved down their throat. On the marriage thing I guess it could turn into an argument of is marrying a right? I really don't think it is but it doesn't really bother me if gays get married or not. I really could not be more indifferent on it.

Actually this decision amounts to a lot.

If the Justice department had not decided to appeal this case the judges injunction would have ended DADT immediately.

The way it stands right now if the judge does not agree to put her injunction on hold DADT is ended unless they can get an appeals court to over turn her injunction until the case is appealed.

The pentagon study in itself is useless.

It accomplishs nothing unless:

Obama on his own orders DADT ended...

..or Congress in particular the Republicans will vote to end it in the Senate. Fat chance of that happening.

So to me I don't see the judge ending it as a "claim to fame" but based on her past judicial record because it was unconstitutional. Further, before issuing this ruling she waited until Congress failed to resolve this issue a couple of weeks ago.

 

[DeletedUser]

DADT should end but it shouldnt end by a juges orders a jude doesnt have the authority to make a change in a congressional order on military policy and it sets a dangerous precident


furthermore making a major change in any military policy durrin wartime is dangerous so IF congress repeals it they need to do it in such a manner that its a timed phasing out taking place after we leave the field of battle to avoid any complications


additionaly they cant simply repeal DADT as it would accualy make things worse for the gay/lesibian comunity in the military as it would revert the military to the previous policy where if you were even suspected of being homsexual you were removed from the military ( rember clinton inacted DADT to PROTECT the homosexual community allowing them to serve as long as they kept it steath )

what they need to do is REPLACE DADT with a modern policy that will allow them to serve the worries about guys in pink and stuff like that are senseless as ANYONE acting outside military conduct codes would be subject to the ucmj so thats jsut BS

another thing to consider and that would take planning is housin durring training

men and women in training are seperated by gender to avoid sexual interaction but if a group of homosexuals are housed together it becomes a temptation ( and trust me in basic training and advanced training when your locked down and under restriction ANY member of the sex your atracted to suddenly starts to look like a super model lol ) so its a matter of figuring out how to house them while keeping that procedure working as much as possible

 

[DeletedUser1121]

Reading all this makes me feel that America got stuck in the 1950's.
The DADT is the one of the most ignorant things there is.
Homosexuality doesn't exist as long as nobody talks about it.
Great way to solve your problems.. Just close your eyes and ears and keep humming a song hoping that it will all disappear.

The only thing it is useful for is escaping out of the army.
Just kiss a guy on the mouth and bye bye trip to Afghanistan.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

DADT should end but it shouldnt end by a juges orders a jude doesnt have the authority to make a change in a congressional order on military policy and it sets a dangerous precident


furthermore making a major change in any military policy durrin wartime is dangerous so IF congress repeals it they need to do it in such a manner that its a timed phasing out taking place after we leave the field of battle to avoid any complications


additionaly they cant simply repeal DADT as it would accualy make things worse for the gay/lesibian comunity in the military as it would revert the military to the previous policy where if you were even suspected of being homsexual you were removed from the military ( rember clinton inacted DADT to PROTECT the homosexual community allowing them to serve as long as they kept it steath )

what they need to do is REPLACE DADT with a modern policy that will allow them to serve the worries about guys in pink and stuff like that are senseless as ANYONE acting outside military conduct codes would be subject to the ucmj so thats jsut BS

another thing to consider and that would take planning is housin durring training

men and women in training are seperated by gender to avoid sexual interaction but if a group of homosexuals are housed together it becomes a temptation ( and trust me in basic training and advanced training when your locked down and under restriction ANY member of the sex your atracted to suddenly starts to look like a super model lol ) so its a matter of figuring out how to house them while keeping that procedure working as much as possible

Oh what utter rubbish.

First off a Federal Judge has the authority to strike down any policy or order as unconstitutional including that of the President of the United States. Its part of the checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the constitution.

Gay soldiers have been serving in the US military for years, I served with them from Vietnam clean through Desert Storm. The major difference is now they are just more open and not being reported like they use to be. They have been fighting and dying for our country and to protect our rights no doubt ever since Bunker Hill.

The ones having the problem with this change are not the majority of the military but the few homophobics, just like in our civilian society.

This will not revert this back to a previous policy, that is nothing but a scare policy circulated to try and convince the gays they are better off with DADT then without it. Quite simple put the Judges decision based on the constitutional reasons she gave means it will be illegal to discriminate against the gays in the military for any reason, with or without DADT. The military codes would have to be changed to reflect that and that code review has actually already started.

How to house them in training? Just like any other soldier, just like they are right now. They are just as responsible as any other soldier an just as capable of "resisting temptation".

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh what utter rubbish.

First off a Federal Judge has the authority to strike down any policy or order as unconstitutional including that of the President of the United States. Its part of the checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the constitution.

Gay soldiers have been serving in the US military for years, I served with them from Vietnam clean through Desert Storm. The major difference is now they are just more open and not being reported like they use to be. They have been fighting and dying for our country and to protect our rights no doubt ever since Bunker Hill.

The ones having the problem with this change are not the majority of the military but the few homophobics, just like in our civilian society.

This will not revert this back to a previous policy, that is nothing but a scare policy circulated to try and convince the gays they are better off with DADT then without it. Quite simple put the Judges decision based on the constitutional reasons she gave means it will be illegal to discriminate against the gays in the military for any reason, with or without DADT. The military codes would have to be changed to reflect that and that code review has actually already started.

How to house them in training? Just like any other soldier, just like they are right now. They are just as responsible as any other soldier an just as capable of "resisting temptation".

its clear that you didnt realy read anything that i posted other than a few clips for you o respond to in a hostile mannor

the entire point of everything i said IF you accualy tookt eh time to read it which you didnt was that it needs to be done in a carefull maner but that IT NEEDS to be done

before you start alling people homophobic you darn wel better know who your talking to as nearly half of my friends are eitehr gay or bisexual and ALL of them beleive that while dadt needs to go it needs to be done right

 

[DeletedUser22575]

its clear that you didnt realy read anything that i posted other than a few clips for you o respond to in a hostile mannor

the entire point of everything i said IF you accualy tookt eh time to read it which you didnt was that it needs to be done in a carefull maner but that IT NEEDS to be done

before you start alling people homophobic you darn wel better know who your talking to as nearly half of my friends are eitehr gay or bisexual and ALL of them beleive that while dadt needs to go it needs to be done right

I did read your post and actually responded to each point you made.

DADT should end but it shouldnt end by a juges orders a jude doesnt have the authority to make a change in a congressional order on military policy and it sets a dangerous precident

You were wrong as I previously stated, the judge does have the authority.

The ones having the problem with this change are not the majority of the military but the few homophobics, just like in our civilian society.

And no one called you homophobic ^^. I clearly stated that ones having a problem with the change are.

You claim you don't have a problem with DADT ending, just how it ends. So now that clearly doesn't refer to you does it?

As far as "ALL" of your bisexual and gay friends go they are a minority.

Those I know just want it ended and don't care how it happens.

However if it was prioritized I think they would tell you their choices would be in descending order:

1. For the Senators and Congressman who supposedly represent the citizens of this country to show a few guts and vote to end it demonstrating that they think those who are gay are citizens entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

But as demonstrated last week thats not going to happen. Senators and Congressman are going to pander to their constituents in their districts and push agendas that will gather them votes...ie...

Promising to over turn the adoption laws in Florida so that gays can't adopt, can't get married, can't collect government benefits or get tax breaks just like any other married couple. In fact many are pushing an agenda now that anyone who is gay or lesbian should not even be able to teach school or have any other career working with children.

To make sure no one slips through the crack their agenda has expanded to where they don't even want anyone who is single to be able to teach school "just in case."

2. For President Obama to keep his campaign promises and end it.

However since our elected representatives passed a law preventing the President of the United States from being able to end DADT by Executive order it is highly unlikely that Obama is going to take the position that law violates the separation of power as laid out in the constitution and do it anyhow and take him to court if they don't like it.

That leaves him trying to work it through the Congress and Senate with the problems as outlined in #1 above.

3. For the courts to end it.

Which at this time they are in the process of doing. The consensus of the courts are changing to where not only DADT is unconstitutional, but so is the Defense of Marriage ACt.

But like I said, bottom line, the gays I know want it ended one way or the other and whatever it takes to do so works for them...just so it happens.

 

[DeletedUser]

i have a problem witht he change so you called me homophobic


2 military policy is decided by the predident and congress its not the judical systems area its called seperation of powers

at MOST the judge could decide that congress needs to change the policy but could not effect that change himself its not his place

3 the VOTE on it you refer to was with dadt RAMMED into somethign completely unrelated and without any kind of time table or new policy to replace it in a way that protects EVERYONE
congress needs to adress DADT not have a small group of dems try to ram it in with another bill

lastly agian its NOT the courts job to legisalte fromt eh bench thats a violation of seperation of powers



and fyi only a handfull of the rather extreeme homosexuals want it jstu ended most want it ended properly and safely because if done wrong it could cause far more harm than good

 

[DeletedUser22575]

i have a problem witht he change so you called me homophobic


2 military policy is decided by the predident and congress its not the judical systems area its called seperation of powers

at MOST the judge could decide that congress needs to change the policy but could not effect that change himself its not his place

3 the VOTE on it you refer to was with dadt RAMMED into somethign completely unrelated and without any kind of time table or new policy to replace it in a way that protects EVERYONE
congress needs to adress DADT not have a small group of dems try to ram it in with another bill

lastly agian its NOT the courts job to legisalte fromt eh bench thats a violation of seperation of powers



and fyi only a handfull of the rather extreeme homosexuals want it jstu ended most want it ended properly and safely because if done wrong it could cause far more harm than good

You are 100 percent wrong. Laws are passed by Congress (the Legislative branch) and the Executive branch (the President and his Cabinet) decide and implement policy. Additionally the President can veto laws and Congress can attempt to over ride those vetos.

The Courts in accordance with the separation of powers to which you referred decided if those laws or policies are constitutional.

The US Military falls under the Department of Defense and is no different than any other branch of government. The courts can and will if necessary decide if the Military is operating in a Legal and Constitutional manner.

It is a part of the checks and balance which our system operates under. As to how the checks and balances work in regards to the courts..the President nominates individuals to the Supreme and Federal Courts. Congress approves them.


So before you come in here and make statements like "2 military policy is decided by the predident and congress its not the judical systems area its called seperation of powers

at MOST the judge could decide that congress needs to change the policy but could not effect that change himself its not his place"

you might actually want to take a few minutes and find out how the system actually works instead of how you think it works.

As far as this TEA PART garbage goes ...

"lastly agian its NOT the courts job to legisalte fromt eh bench thats a violation of seperation of powers "....

Courts do not legislate. They make interpretations as in this case of the Constitution and if individual or groups rights are being violated. That is not legislation by any means.

It is the responsibility of the Courts to act and issue rulings in those cases utilizing the powers designated to them by the Constitution of the United States ...not set on their hands and go..."well congress said..".

If this judge had ruled to over turn the right to abortion or to restrict it you would not have called this "legislation from the bench" but you and those like you would have been applauding her and calling it a "right decision".

And no matter how it ends, court action, congressional action, or presidential order...it has ended legally and the "correct way".

 

[DeletedUser]

when a judge oversteps his bounds and uses his ruleings to dramaticaly chance us law thats legislating from teh bench and the tea party has nothing to do with it so keep your bias out of this discusion

furthermore when a subject like homosexuality isnt adressed by the consitution then a judge cant rule on its constituionality

i agree they need to be protected but there needs to be a new admentment to the constitution to effect proper change in things like gay marrage and such its not a judges place



people like yourself are part of the problem when you DEMAND instant gratification by any means irregaurdless of the long term issues it may or may not cause

90% of the population feels homosexuals should be able to serve but most of us all want it to be done in a safe and correct mannor so to attack someone because there not on you TIME TABLE is absurd


try coming down off your high horse and realize it will be done but odds are good it WONT be done on your time table because it will likely cause far more problems than it would solve

 

[DeletedUser22575]

when a judge oversteps his bounds and uses his ruleings to dramaticaly chance us law thats legislating from teh bench and the tea party has nothing to do with it so keep your bias out of this discusion

furthermore when a subject like homosexuality isnt adressed by the consitution then a judge cant rule on its constituionality

i agree they need to be protected but there needs to be a new admentment to the constitution to effect proper change in things like gay marrage and such its not a judges place



people like yourself are part of the problem when you DEMAND instant gratification by any means irregaurdless of the long term issues it may or may not cause

90% of the population feels homosexuals should be able to serve but most of us all want it to be done in a safe and correct mannor so to attack someone because there not on you TIME TABLE is absurd


try coming down off your high horse and realize it will be done but odds are good it WONT be done on your time table because it will likely cause far more problems than it would solve

You obviously have no real idea what a judges limits are, but do seem to think anything you disagree with is "overstepping his bounds".

As far as this goes..

"furthermore when a subject like homosexuality isnt adressed by the consitution then a judge cant rule on its constituionality"

Many things have not been address in our constitution, which is why it is referred to as a "flexiable" document to meet unaticipated changes by the founding fathers who wrote the constitution.

And these unanticipated changes in society have been ruled on as far as constitutionality in the past.

All I have to say at this point is your lack of knowledge on how our government actually works is astounding and is only exceeded by your uninformed numerous opinions on the way you think the system should operate.

BUT

Since you think there is a "correct" method for this change to happen what is it?

The President can't change it on his own and Congress won't due to partisan politics.

So what is the correct method?

For nothing to happen until some unknown time in the future who knows how many years down the road when congress might do something while citizens of this country continue to have their rights violated on an ongoing basis and are treated as second class citizens while at the same time they fight and die for this country ??

 

[DeletedUser]

first off for it to take place durring wartime there needs to be some kind of study to be sure it wont have an adverse effect on troops in teh field otherwise it needs to happen AFTER the current wars are over

secondly it needs to not simply be repealed it needs to be replaced with a good current policy

by repealing you only reverse it tot he previous policy which was BAD far worse than dadt

lastly to say congress won change it is rediculous

esspecialy when you base it on a horible partisan attempt to stuff repeal into a budget bill with no discusion or evealuation

lastly even if congress decided to repeal it they could set it so that he repeal wont take effect untill the war is over or a study is done and shows that it wont effect the troops in the field negatively

 

[DeletedUser]

But it is a discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It shouldn't be covered as a hate crime based on 'sexual orientation'. It's something you can resist showing. A black man can not resist being black, for he is. A woman can not resist being a woman, for she is. A gay man can resist being gay.

Umm, no. There has been ample evidence to demonstrate sexual orientation is not a choice.

furthermore when a subject like homosexuality isnt adressed by the consitution then a judge cant rule on its constituionality

A judge can rule on any issue that has been presented before him.

90% of the population feels homosexuals should be able to serve but most of us all want it to be done in a safe and correct mannor

Care to present those reports that back up your contrived statistics?

Many things have not been address in our constitution, which is why it is referred to as a "flexiable" document to meet unaticipated changes by the founding fathers who wrote the constitution.

The Constitution already addresses it. The Declaration of Independence stated all Men are created equal (Men refers to the race of man, not the gender), while the U.S. Constitution affirms this by stating, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriage is a legal contract, a protection provided to couples. By denying homosexual couples from being married, they are being denied equal protection under the law.