"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Utterly, absolutely false. In terms of 'citizens', yes, absolutely. But in terms of being a soldier? They have a Commander in Chief for a reason. They are paid to follow orders for a reason.

What's that reason? The fact that, with their access to advanced weapon systems that nobody else in the country can legally use, they can enforce their will by force of arms.

The military must ALWAYS be absolutely subservient to the civilian authority. If it isn't, if it can use its weaponry to enforce its social wishes, then we don't have a republic anymore, we have a military dictatorship.

They still get a vote, like any other citizen, but if the vote goes against them, they do not have the right to refute that outcome. When they're wearing that uniform, they are explicitly subservient to the whims of the country, even more than other citizens, because of the responsibility of using that weaponry.

If they don't like that, they don't have to put on the uniform.

We have not always had a volunteer military, though.

Even then, once you're handed that weapon and uniform, you don't have any additional power to disobey orders or inflict your desires on your fellow citizens. You lose rights and privileges as a soldier, you don't gain them.

This is absolutely necessary to preserve the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of force.

As a soldier, you have the right (and the duty) to refuse an illegal order, but telling someone they're to go fight the enemy with gay soldiers in their platoon is not illegal.

We don't disagree there.

I think you're somewhat missing my point.

Joining the military is a privilege of legal residency in the United States of America and the benefits of partaking in that privilege are significant enough to attract people to a dangerous profession (e.g.: educational, job training, path to citizenship, career path). These benefits and the maintenance of the military itself is paid for through taxation of the population as a whole.

Should the majority of Americans decide that one group not be allowed to serve in the military despite there being no logical reason for this exclusion other than bigotry, it would be the duty of the judicial branch of our republic to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This was the intention of the founders and precisely why we don't have a true democracy. It is also why folks who whine about "activist judges" are overwhelmingly poor Constitutional scholars.

That's pretty much orthogonal to what I'm talking about, which is the fact that soldiers need to follow orders. If we tell them to fight with gays in their units, their opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

It's not like we did a bunch of polls, way back when, to ask soldiers, "Gee, do you think you could fight with black people in your squad? Pleeeeze?"

Reports coming across the wires indicating that Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta and Adm. Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, will certify the military is prepared for the complete end to Don't Ask Don't Tell.

If Pres. Obama accepts the certification, Don't Ask Don't Tell will finally end sometime in September.

Pentagon officials will announce Friday that the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed services can be lifted without harming militaryreadiness, a step that is likely to end the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy in September, Defense Department officials said.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are recommending to President Obama that he proceed with final repeal of the policy that has been in place for nearly two decades, the officials said.

This is exceptional news.

I have always believed that people in the military should be someone that represents american ideals. Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world. sure there's a lot of messed up people serving in our military but, it doesn't mean we aren't trying to prevent that also. I personally have no problems treating gays the same respect i treat everyone else when it comes to business, friendship etc. But when asking if they should leader or a ambassador, I feel like i have to intervene.

FiveIron wrote:

Call me a bigot

OK

iaintgotnopants wrote:
FiveIron wrote:

Call me a bigot

OK

+1.

I don't give a sh*t which team a person plays for: if they want to serve they are good enough for me.

FiveIron wrote:

Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction.

So did you get your psychology degree before or after you carefully considered both options and decided to be heterosexual?

Stengah wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
FiveIron wrote:

Call me a bigot

OK

+1.

Done.

FiveIron wrote:

I have always believed that people in the military should be someone that represents american ideals. Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world. sure there's a lot of messed up people serving in our military but, it doesn't mean we aren't trying to prevent that also. I personally have no problems treating gays the same respect i treat everyone else when it comes to business, friendship etc. But when asking if they should leader or a ambassador, I feel like i have to intervene.

Well, considering the American Psychological Association finds that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a mental dysfunction, and considering they are a much more reliable source on issues relating to human psychology and brain function, I'd have to disagree with your belief.

Mind you, I'd fight for your right to believe it, and since it's no skin off my nose that you do, have at. But keep this in mind: there have been homosexuals serving in the military throughout US history, and each one of them has been willing to put their life on the line, and many have paid the ultimate price, in order for you to hold that belief.

FiveIron wrote:

I have always believed that people in the military should be someone that represents american ideals. Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world. sure there's a lot of messed up people serving in our military but, it doesn't mean we aren't trying to prevent that also. I personally have no problems treating gays the same respect i treat everyone else when it comes to business, friendship etc. But when asking if they should leader or a ambassador, I feel like i have to intervene.

If the people of the United States decide to elect an openly gay president, outside of leading a coup against a democratically-elected member of the executive branch, perhaps you could describe how you plan to "intervene"?

Likewise, the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch have all but put DADT into the dustbin of history and polling shows anywhere from 60-80% of the American public support doing away with DADT as well.

I hope you are not suggesting that your voice should carry more weight than that of the majority of your fellow citizens and all three branches of government.

FiveIron, I think it's telling that the two guys with arguably the most skin in this game are the only two patient enough to grace you with a thoughtful response.

With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world.

Well, I'm fine with it. I can think of several gay people I've known that I'd think of as better representatives of America than I am myself.

I can think of at least a couple that I definitely would NOT want in that kind of capacity, but I suspect at least one of them was f*cked up because of people telling him being gay made him broken and wrong.

FiveIron wrote:

I have always believed that people in the military should be someone that represents american ideals. Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world. sure there's a lot of messed up people serving in our military but, it doesn't mean we aren't trying to prevent that also. I personally have no problems treating gays the same respect i treat everyone else when it comes to business, friendship etc. But when asking if they should leader or a ambassador, I feel like i have to intervene.

Michael Barrett, Sergeant Major Of Marine Corps disagrees with you. I don't think this was posted here.

Sgt. Maj. Barrett visited a base in South Korea last week, where he delivered his opinions on DADT and the plans to repeal the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the U.S. military.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Sgt. Maj. Barrett brought out a small copy of the Constitution and referenced Article 1, Section 8. “It says, ‘Raise an army.’ It says absolutely nothing about race, color, creed, sexual orientation.” He then asked if everyone in the group joined the Marines to protect their nation, going on to say, “How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?”

Sgt. Maj. Barrett concluded by saying “Get over it… Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/michael-barrett-dadt-gay-rights_n_881109.html

FiveIron wrote:

I have always believed that people in the military should be someone that represents american ideals. Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world. sure there's a lot of messed up people serving in our military but, it doesn't mean we aren't trying to prevent that also. I personally have no problems treating gays the same respect i treat everyone else when it comes to business, friendship etc. But when asking if they should leader or a ambassador, I feel like i have to intervene.

I hate to tell you, but that does sound very bigoted. I have a question, have you ever served in the Military? I know I am serving and there are dozens of others on this site that has that could probably back me up here. But, in every unit that I've served in there has been an overwhelming support for homosexuals in the military (or in many cases they would just answer, "Meh, why would I care?"). In fact I've only heard one or maybe 2 Soldiers that I've worked with to be against gays/lesbians serving. In fact I knew a closet homosexual in my previous unit, and guess what? He was one of the best NCOs that I've seen.

Oh, and the Army did a survey asking opinions on whether allowing open homosexuality in the ranks would damage moral or our warfighting capabilities and they overwhelmingly said no.

Taco, my exposure to military people has been somewhat limited, but from what I've seen of them, anti-gay jokes seem to be a method of bonding. I mean, it's really virulent from some of these guys. Is that not what you're seeing?

Malor wrote:

Taco, my exposure to military people has been somewhat limited, but from what I've seen of them, anti-gay jokes seem to be a method of bonding. I mean, it's really virulent from some of these guys. Is that not what you're seeing?

It really depends on what type of Soldiers you are around. With the type of military personnel I'm always around they are more interested on what loot they got on last night's WoW raid. My military experience is probably not the same as most people, and probably not representative, but I thought it was still valid to point out to FiveIron. Besides, I just assumed my anecdotal evidence is scientific.

Ah, well, you're probably a fair bit younger than I am -- most of the soldiers I've known are over 40 now. The military itself is probably changing.

Heh, I bet WoW is a real blessing for soldiers.

cube wrote:
Stengah wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
FiveIron wrote:

Call me a bigot

OK

+1.

Done.

+1. There is nothing wrong with a homosexual representing the USA in a leadership or representative role.

Xeknos wrote:
cube wrote:
Stengah wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
FiveIron wrote:

Call me a bigot

OK

+1.

Done.

+1. There is nothing wrong with a homosexual representing the USA in a leadership or representative role.

If you are cool with being called one, I am cool with calling you one.

*Edit* You are on the Kansas side, right?

SallyNasty wrote:
Xeknos wrote:
cube wrote:
Stengah wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
FiveIron wrote:

Call me a bigot

OK

+1.

Done.

+1. There is nothing wrong with a homosexual representing the USA in a leadership or representative role.

If you are cool with being called one, I am cool with calling you one.

*Edit* You are on the Kansas side, right?

+1. Bigot.

FiveIron wrote:

Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction.

So you're saying people are either gay because they decide to be (clearly untrue, I'm sure most people didn't evaluate each sexuality's merits and failings, and then make a decision), or they're mentally dysfunctional?

With no disrespect to you intended, this argument is absurd.

Just as a point, if you're bisexual, you can choose your partners and be attracted either way. So for some people, there *is* a choice involved. It's not on-off black and white, it's a spectrum.

Robear wrote:

it's a spectrum.

Much like everything else in life.

FiveIron wrote:

i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction.

Suppose we had a world in which everything was the same except homosexuality is a choice or a mental dysfunction (I do not agree that this is the case in our world):

How exactly would this matter given that the US is supposedly founded on various freedoms? "one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all except those whose personal relationships and bedroom activities I happen to find disagreeable"?

Breaking the black-and-white dichotomy and revealing the hugely diverse spectrum Robear mentions would be a good start but I don't imagine those who deem such things immoral are likely to ever accept that a tremendous grey zone exist.

The moment marriage became a legal institution instead if a purely religious one, the argument that we have to "keep marriage sacred" went out the window. That's how our society is supposed to work: the moment you extend one freedom to someone, you have to extend it to everyone. If it were kept a purely religious institution (i.e, only Christians could get married, and everyone else had to get civil unions) then the argument would hold some weight, but it doesn't work like that.

FiveIron wrote:

Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world.

I want to address this again. This has been stated many times, but there is absolutely no proof that sexual orientation is a choice. Frankly, I've had it up to here with trash opinions being accepted simply because we, as a society, decided to allow freedom of speech. It's one thing to have a valid opinion, but it's quite another to spew hate speech under the guise of "freedom of speech." I want to make clear I'm not accusing you of this, FiveIron, nor is my intention to be disrespectful, but I am curious as to where your belief came from.