Judge orders 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction

[AxisMundi]

I definitely appreciate that opinion. But your second to last paragraph, that the judge made the right call, contradicts everything you said up to that point. If the decision of whether or not gays should serve in the military, as well as whether or not a DADT policy should be applied to them if they do, is to be based on whether or not it is rational, from a military standpoint, then it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide.

You have yet to offer any rational for defending DADT.

 

[erowe1]

You have yet to offer any rational for defending DADT.

I have never once in this thread said that I support DADT.

 

[erowe1]

Firstly, yes science does show that the bigotry towards the GLBT community is undounded. There is simply no valid reason to promote hate towards.

Secondly, clinical research is a science. That clinical research shows how much damage to many gay individuals that the unfoudned bigotry has caused.

Again, you're expanding science beyond its capabilities. Clinical research may or may not follow the scientific method in any given instance. But if it does, it can never escape the fact that, to the degree that it is scientific, it can only answer questions of is, and never questions of ought. The idea that the things you mean by "harm" are indeed immoral, and the idea that some kind of bigotry is unfounded, are questions of ought, and are entirely outside the scope of all the natural sciences.

I prefer to use the dictionary definition, not the one hysterical definition attributed to the efforts to re-secularize our g'ment.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

Good. I don't see a problem there.

Again, science proves homosexuality to be a natural, inherent aspect of the gay individual.

No it doesn't. But even if it did, that would be of absolutely no help to the question of whether or not there is anything wrong with homosexuality, or whether or not DADT is a good policy.

Secondly, we are a secular Nation, relgiious doctrine is not suppsoed to be the sole basis for laws in this country. That include the DADT policy.

On the contrary, we are not a secular nation. And there is no such thing as a law in this country or any other country that is not based on religious doctrine in some way.

Please show a dictionary definition proving that I am using my own lexicon in that sentance.

The sentence in question is the following:

Just becasue Christianity has absorbed these morals doesn't make said morals property of the religion.

I'm not sure which word I need to provide you the definition of. But if Christianity absorbed certain social mores, then that fact means that they are a property of the religion. If they are not a property of the religion, then it cannot be the case that it absorbed them.

 

[libertarian4321]

I definitely appreciate that opinion. But your second to last paragraph, that the judge made the right call, contradicts everything you said up to that point. If the decision of whether or not gays should serve in the military, as well as whether or not a DADT policy should be applied to them if they do, is to be based on whether or not it is rational, from a military standpoint, then it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide.

Let me be clear.

It is the right thing to do, period.

From both a Constitutional and military point of view.

Having the government discriminate against one group of citizens, while favoring another, for arbitrary reasons that have no military value, is just plain wrong, for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or red heads.

 

[libertarian4321]

And thus DADT works.

No, it doesn't.

I'll tell you why.

Not only are gays being tossed out for "coming out," but far more are being tossed out because someone rat's on them.

The gay soldiers are NOT "telling." Yet they are still tossed out- because someone finds out and turns them in or because someone conducts a successful witch hunt.

Not only does this cost all of us a lot of money (it costs a lot of money to train soldiers), it affects readiness (it takes time to replace that soldier). It is also a security risk- as long as a soldier can have his sexuality held over him, he can be blackmailed.

Let me explain. You have a gay soldier who loves the military. He is NOT "telling." He does his job well and follows the policy. But someone finds out he is gay and threatens to expose him and end his career, unless that soldier does something for him (like divulge sensitive information). It gives our enemies and potential enemies the ability to use the policy to extract information from our soldiers- about weapons systems, for example.

The policy is a mess. It does nothing to enhance readiness. It's bad for the soldiers, it's bad for the taxpayers, and it's bad for national security. DADT needs to change and change now.

You can count this old soldier as one who favors getting rid of the policy. My reserve service ends in just under a year, I hope this issue is correctly resolved by then.

BTW, I'm not saying anything radical here- for those who claim that all the military brass support DADT, there are many who do not, including the Chairman of the JCS.

 

[erowe1]

Let me be clear.

It is the right thing to do, period.

From both a Constitutional and military point of view.

Having the government discriminate against one group of citizens, while favoring another, for arbitrary reasons that have no military value, is just plain wrong, for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or red heads.

1) You might have good reasons to be against DADT, but your position has nothing to do with the Constitution.
2) I find it interesting that you include the phrase, "reasons that have no military value." If there were a reason that did have military value would DADT then be acceptable? And if so, then whose job is it to decide whether such a reason exists? Possible military officers, possibly the President, possibly Congress. But surely not anyone in the judicial branch.

 

[AxisMundi]

1) You might have good reasons to be against DADT, but your position has nothing to do with the Constitution.
2) I find it interesting that you include the phrase, "reasons that have no military value." If there were a reason that did have military value would DADT then be acceptable? And if so, then whose job is it to decide whether such a reason exists? Possible military officers, possibly the President, possibly Congress. But surely not anyone in the judicial branch.

If there is a valid military reason, especially in light of all that has been pointed out from witchhunts to security issues, as well as testimonials from past and present military personnel, please list them.

DADT was a politically motivated and expedient quick fix, an attempt at empty pandering towards Civil Rights activists while still catering to the old school hardliner homophobes within the military. And like every other government "Band-aid" policy, it doesn't work.

And yes, it certainly is a Constitutional issue, as there is no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays in this, or any manner, especially by our own government. Civil Rights are based on Constitutional Principles, from Protected Classes to voting.

Relgiious doctrines, or just plain "Ick", are simply not reasons to base laws, civilian or military, upon.

 

[erowe1]

If there is a valid military reason, especially in light of all that has been pointed out from witchhunts to security issues, as well as testimonials from past and present military personnel, please list them.

That's really none of my concern. I don't care one way or the other about DADT (except for the fact that I like the way it reduces the number of people in the military). The important point is that the question of whether or not there is a valid military reason is not mine to answer, and it's certainly not a judge's to answer. But if it does become an issue that the American taxpayers wish to settle legislatively, then the branch of government through which they need to enact that legislation is the legislative one, not the judicial one. If, for example, those taxpayers wish to demand via Congress that their money not be used to fund homosexuals in the military, that's their right, since it's their money. What they don't have a right to do is to delegate to their legislators the passing of laws that would spend their money in ways that violates someone's rights. But that's not relevant to this issue, since none of the options (DADT, the repeal of DADT, or even flat out banning of gays in the military) violate anyone's rights, except inasmuch as they violate the rights of taxpayers not to have to be coerced into funding the military, which is a violation that all options commit equally.

And yes, it certainly is a Constitutional issue, as there is no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays in this, or any manner, especially by our own government. Civil Rights are based on Constitutional Principles, from Protected Classes to voting.

The concept of "protected classes" is diametrically opposed to constitutional principles.

 

[AxisMundi]

That's really none of my concern. I don't care one way or the other about DADT (except for the fact that I like the way it reduces the number of people in the military). The important point is that the question of whether or not there is a valid military reason is not mine to answer, and it's certainly not a judge's to answer. But if it does become an issue that the American taxpayers wish to settle legislatively, then the branch of government through which they need to enact that legislation is the legislative one, not the judicial one. If, for example, those taxpayers wish to demand via Congress that their money not be used to fund homosexuals in the military, that's their right, since it's their money. What they don't have a right to do is to delegate to their legislators the passing of laws that would spend their money in ways that violates someone's rights. But that's not relevant to this issue, since none of the options (DADT, the repeal of DADT, or even flat out banning of gays in the military) violate anyone's rights, except inasmuch as they violate the rights of taxpayers not to have to be coerced into funding the military, which is a violation that all options commit equally.

Firstly, to be frank I have to question your integrety in supporting open discrimination to "reduces the number of people in the military". Recruitment limitations would be a much better, and non-discriminatory, method.

Secondly, as I have noted, the Judicial Branch is there for We the People to petition our government over the redress of greviences. In this example to challenge unjust and discriminatory governmental policies.

Lastly, I would imagine that JAG representatives where present in defense of the DADT policy. If they could not convince the judge that there was indeed a valid reason for this discriminatory policy, guess what, there isn't any.

Equality and Civil Rights should never be left open to the democratic principle as the majority will always find ways to discriminate against the minority.

The concept of "protected classes" is diametrically opposed to constitutional principles.

I have heard this "argument" given many times before, Perhaps you will be the first to offer a valid argument instead of the empty rhetoric the phrase is.

People have been, and are, discriminated in housing, employment, education, and other areas of life purely because of race, religion, age, gender, and the other Protected Classes.

It never fails to amaze me how some will speak out against the concept, but then utilize it without hesitation should, say, they feel their religious freedoms are being impinged upon.

 

[erowe1]

Equality and Civil Rights should never be left open to the democratic principle as the majority will always find ways to discriminate against the minority.

Equality and "civil rights" are two different things. DADT doesn't violate anyone's rights.

 

[erowe1]

I have heard this "argument" given many times before, Perhaps you will be the first to offer a valid argument instead of the empty rhetoric the phrase is.

People have been, and are, discriminated in housing, employment, education, and other areas of life purely because of race, religion, age, gender, and the other Protected Classes.

OK, I get it. So you're pretty much just trolling here.

 

[oyarde]

Let me be clear.

It is the right thing to do, period.

From both a Constitutional and military point of view.

Having the government discriminate against one group of citizens, while favoring another, for arbitrary reasons that have no military value, is just plain wrong, for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or red heads.

I see your point. If I was a Marine or Army General though , I may tell you that it does have military value. The most important thing at squad and platoon level is trust . Some of these young men would be distrustful of someone who is different than them.

 

[Promontorium]

Exactly. I would like to see them enact DADT policies for more groups, including Christians, left-handed people, heterosexuals, nonchristians, and right-handed people.

And this is why your opinion is irrelevant.

You are the fox petitioning to gaurd the henhouse. You want the military to collapse. Your opposition to a moral military is quite telling.


Many of you are talking out of both sides of your mouths, because you are biased against homosexuals and you refuse a rational argument. You can not make a non statist argument against gays in the military. You have to appeal to authoritarianism and tyranny of the majority, both things you'd argue against if it applied to you.

The military should both represent the people and take its orders from the people. Your proposal that the federal government should discriminate based on sexuality just disgusts me. That is the heart of anti-liberty. You can't be selectively for liberty in one place and not others. It is hypocrisy, and ultimately when you allow each person even one ignorant hypocritical idea, the totality is more tyrannical and evil than you can imagine.

All your excuses are bullshit. We could go through them one by one but it would make liars of us all. You hate homosexuals. Get over it. It is detrimental to your soul. Or you might be just insane like this guy^ and Austrian Econ who claims he's in the military while being a full blown anarchist. You are a hypocrite, get out of the military. You oppose its existence, while servicing it. Quit or stop acting like you can draw such lines. You don't mind espousing harsh extremist ideas but god forbid you hold yourself to even the remotist standard.

I've seen the shitty effects of DADT I've seen the best get kicked out for being strong armed into admitting their sexuality in words, while disgusting vile shitbags who fuck each other on the job cheating on their spouses get nothing but pay raises.

We need a professional and outstanding military. One that represents liberty, and affords to any man or woman an opportunity to serve if they can do the job. Militaries aren't just jobs, they are symbols, they are diplomats, they must abide to the highest standards of the people they are sworn to defend. They must be better than the average, they must be just. You introduce these biases, these hypocritical standards, and the people you hire will reflect this in behavior. If we should be a nation of thugs, then sure we should only hire people for their killing ability. But if we ever want a moral authority, a just representation, it must be reflected in the military.

 

[teacherone]

actually we don't need a standing army at all... constitutionally speaking a navy would suffice.