Federal court rules against military gays policy

Federal court rules against military gays policy

news.yahoo.com

SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.
Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, I was in the military, and I don't know about how the majority of the members of the military will take this. It's a lot of issues rolled into one, and I don't think it's as simple as a lot of gay rights activists want to believe it is. Any opinions on what this is going to mean? how about our state of readiness? (and that is not meant to mean anything derogatory)

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 22-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]

reply to post by jasonjnelson


Care to expand on how allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would do anything to hinder our state of readiness? We're like, some of the most organized people on the planet - if anything, we'd enhance our state of readiness.

And further...give a platoon of angry lesbians and gay men an automatic weapon and a license to kill - we would have been out of Iraq long long ago.

[edit on 22/5/08 by WickedStar]

reply to post by WickedStar


Well, actually, I asked about what others thought. My opinion is too conflicted to really provide much insight. I am not gay. Did I know Gays who served? yes. Were they any different than others when performing their duties? Not that I knew of.
But can I begin to dissect the broader range of issues? I don't believe I'm qualified. I can relate to one thing, however. I know that it would have made me uncomfortable to shower and bunk in the same area as a female who was interested in me. And although I know that your rebuttal will be that not all men want to sleep with all men, etc. however as a product of both the 80's and 90's, you and I both know that the sex drive of any male is high, and there is bound to be an uncomfortable level of tension amongst some members of the hetero population. The young gay crowd has never been afraid to flaunt its open sexuality. And we cannot call those with differing values to all be bigots. So do we then force our military to have only solo rooms or showers? it is not about gays jumping all over straights or anything, it's about a level of comfort. I would have had no idea how to deal with that as a young man. I would have probably lashed out.

But you see, this is one minute example of what can go wrong here. But my opinion is slightly biased. I believe that although people have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home, there is a moral obligation to have a certain atmosphere outside the home. I can't stand the over-sexualization of our culture. It offends me gay or straight. So since I believe that being gay is a choice, (an argument many will find wrong) and since I believe that our society is over sexed, that if we were to eliminate the latter, the former would be far less of a problem to most. It is about realizing that people have a right to be offended by the gay culture. They are not uncivilized, they just have a God given right, as any other does, to feel what they feel, and be able to live a certain lifestyle that neither infringes, nor is infringed upon by, another. Not in the public spectrum anyway. The phrase, "get a room" was popular a long time ago. I don't think myself a prude for thinking that our business is too eagerly shared with an unsuspecting public.

Does this thread deserve a bump? I think so...

No a one line post!

reply to post by jasonjnelson


I understand your point. Since you believe it's a choice - I can't really argue with you regarding that - it's fruitless; though, I can point you to multiple scientific studies that do prove that our sexualities are part built into our physiology.

At any rate, you're afraid of showering with gay soldiers - ok. I can't really argue much to that either seeing how it is your personal fear - although perhaps irrational at least. The point of the whole gays in the military issue is not how comfortable or uncomfortable heterosexuals would be - it is the fact that every adult homosexual in this country pays taxes and largely consider themselves patriotic -despite the fact that our country continually denigrates us. Why then should we not be able to openly enjoy the god- given right to defend our country and our loved ones from our enemies. We die just the same anyways? It's not as if our enemies really care who we (homosexuals) are - except in the cases where they do and would just assume kill us first anyway.

It seems to me that the crux of the argument (and I know I'm going a bit off topic here because, like a gentleman, you didn't seek to bash us or through the bible at our heads or accuse us of being sick), the crux of the argument is that we are somehow unfit to defend our beloved country once we are honest with ourselves and our country men about who we are - that we are somehow less human and less American because we are attracted to the same sex - that we are unworthy of dying an honorable death in combat because we are Gay or Lesbian. I assure you, if you had a homosexual battle buddy, they would defend you just the same as a heterosexual. Matter of fact, if you look at Ancient Greece - soldiers were encouraged to engage in homosexual relationships with their battle buddies simply for the fact that you will defend, with your absolute dying breath, the man you love and fight beside.

[edit on 22/5/08 by WickedStar]

reply to post by WickedStar


I cannot argue that there might be a stronger connection, lol. What I can say, is that I was not in any way insinuating I am "afraid" to shower with a gay man. What I am merely pointing out is that this would cause the same level opf discomfort that showering and sharing a bunk with a woman would do. I cannot be any more clear than that. What I was pointing out overall is, that the gay community, and those that support it, forget that there are many "ways" of life in this place. And that just like you might find bible thumpers unacceptable, which is your choice and right, then others might feel the same about you.
That this is a much broader issue, one where people are being told that their personal feelings and comfort are below the same for others. As a member of the gay community, I know that you must be following with interest the latest struggles the community has had with those choosing to nest it up in areas that are known to be "club" areas. And that they are struggling with how to handle "open" sexuality among their new children. I have no doubt that a gay man can fire a rifle, but I don't think it's about that.
Did you know, for example, that giving or receiving head, (and I mean hetero) is illegal in the military? Or that you can serve time in the brig for adultery? It's a much bigger list of issues, one that some people keep forgetting exists. Where are the smart people who realize that a "soft" integration would be a much smarter idea?

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by WickedStar

 

I cannot argue that there might be a stronger connection, lol. What I can say, is that I was not in any way insinuating I am "afraid" to shower with a gay man. What I am merely pointing out is that this would cause the same level opf discomfort that showering and sharing a bunk with a woman would do. I cannot be any more clear than that. What I was pointing out overall is, that the gay community, and those that support it, forget that there are many "ways" of life in this place. And that just like you might find bible thumpers unacceptable, which is your choice and right, then others might feel the same about you.
That this is a much broader issue, one where people are being told that their personal feelings and comfort are below the same for others. As a member of the gay community, I know that you must be following with interest the latest struggles the community has had with those choosing to nest it up in areas that are known to be "club" areas. And that they are struggling with how to handle "open" sexuality among their new children. I have no doubt that a gay man can fire a rifle, but I don't think it's about that.
Did you know, for example, that giving or receiving head, (and I mean hetero) is illegal in the military? Or that you can serve time in the brig for adultery? It's a much bigger list of issues, one that some people keep forgetting exists. Where are the smart people who realize that a "soft" integration would be a much smarter idea?

What exactly is a soft integration? Is it anything like the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Actually, I did know that engaging in any sexual activity while enlisted and on active duty is a punishable offense.

A star for both of you for having a nice friendly discussion. In a way, I agree with both points of view.

I am big fan of slow integration. At one point, we had segregated units because at the time the attitudes of the soldiers and commanders didn't allows for complete integration of the units.

Yes, it does suck that as a non-mainstream class (non-white male) you have to prove yourself by going far above and beyond what is expected of you. The thing is that to military men actions mean much more than words and prejudices. Eventually, units were fully integrated because the mindset of the people in charge and the mindset of the soldiers had changed enough to allow for complete racial integration.

I see the gay struggle for acceptance into the military the same way. I think they should rally for a segregated unit of just homosexual men (and women.) It might at first seem counter-productive to segregate homosexual from straight but you have to give the average-Joe a chance to warm-up to the idea of serving with a homosexual.

Yes, you will be given the worst assignments and treated like dirt at first. You must not give up or complain or march. Just grin and bare it. As the unit meets its objectives and the commendations for the unit begin to mount, you will see everyone acting a different way.

Eventually, it will "click" in the mind of the common soldier and he will see you as a man who is willing to pay the ultimate price for a common belief you both share - who happens to be homosexual. He will begin to see you as a brother - who happens to be homosexual. In a few years, those same soldiers who were against homosexuals earlier will stand alongside you and begin to demand equal treatment, equal rights, and integrated units.

Jon

reply to post by WickedStar


I should have been careful, as I was not trying to imply that you weren't smart, or that I am smarter than anyone else.

I guess that the other poster has brought up an interesting point. Though I wouldn't necessarily argue for separate units, I'm saying that there needs to be a give and take. That for others to accept the fact that it's not about just the Gay or straight issue, but others as well. That the majority of members of the military are religious in nature and culture, and that these people cannot be just forced to accept that a lifestyle that they consider to be inappropriate is just plain"okay" in their eyes. Which brings me back to my point, and that is that a large group of people consider that lifestyle to be a choice. Just as theirs is. And we can both get medical studies to prove both our theories.
I have long lamented not the gay culture, but the over-sexualization of our country. I don't think it good for many, many reasons. It just so happens that the idea of a large majority of the gay population settling in to long term relationships that parallel hetero ones is a new concept in the mainstream. I will site again the articles that point to the clash of certain aspects of the gay community. A new group of "breeders" if you will.
I think that with time, and the establishment of family based gay culture, there will be a huge change in not only how gays are viewed, but also maybe how morality is viewed. Maybe the boomerang will come back. if you follow my point?

[edit on 22-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]

reply to post by Voxel


Thanks for the star Voxel.

Maybe I'm shooting at stars here but don't you think that the segregationist policy the military took against African American soldiers including giving them the sh*t assignments, being treated as dirt etc. is exactly representative of the severe racism that characterized our country during 40's and 50's?

I realize that there are those harbor the same sentiment about homosexuals as was harbored for African Americans during the mid 20th century. However, if the civil rights movement taught America anything, it should have taught us that "all men are created equal". It is my opinion that if America adopted the same segregationist policy concerning gays in the military - it would just prove that we, as a country, have learned absolutely nothing from the civil/human rights struggle.

reply to post by WickedStar


Agreed, But I think that I get what he is getting at. It requires a paradigm shift, thats all.
But then again, I think that it is a much larger issue, of intolerance on ALL sides.

Originally posted by WickedStar
reply to post by Voxel

 

Thanks for the star Voxel.

Maybe I'm shooting at stars here but don't you think that the segregationist policy the military took against African American soldiers including giving them the sh*t assignments, being treated as dirt etc. is exactly representative of the severe racism that characterized our country during 40's and 50's?

In many ways the gay rights fight has more in common with the womens rights fight than the black civil rights fight. Homosexuals are oppressed in the same way and for the same reason as women were prior to that paradigm shift. (thanks jason)

Originally posted by WickedStar
I realize that there are those harbor the same sentiment about homosexuals as was harbored for African Americans during the mid 20th century. However, if the civil rights movement taught America anything, it should have taught us that "all men are created equal".

White women had fought and won many battles for their rights long before the african-americans even began the long process of fighting for their god given rights. The two groups had to individually fight because the prejudices, though similar in the effect felt by the group, were completely different in social reasoning. Each civil-rights fight was against a different set of prejudices; the armies have changed so the battle must start anew.

Originally posted by WickedStar
It is my opinion that if America adopted the same segregationist policy concerning gays in the military - it would just prove that we, as a country, have learned absolutely nothing from the civil/human rights struggle.

It is not about civilization; It is about the way the human animals rewrite their brains. We must combat prejudices through perception. You have to actively show human beings until the majority of them get that all you want is to serve more than anything.

But you can't show them anything if you are actively hiding your preference in their units and you can't just come out because dismissal will be the least of your worries. What do you do? I propose that you should segregate and then you shock and awe the commanders with your metrics and the soldiers with your heroics. Doing so gives homosexuals in the military the opportunity to be highly visible while at the same time protected from bigotry and intolerance.

Jon

[edit on 5.22.2008 by Voxel]

reply to post by Voxel


You're right that the homosexual struggle is akin to the Women's struggle - I chose to compare it to the African American struggle because it's freshest in our collective memories. Thanks for your input!

reply to post by Voxel


As soldiering was never a question in my eyes, (I saw no difference) I merely remind you that My argument is that there is a double standard being applied by both sides of this debate. That neither sides respects or agrees the other at all. I think it is similar to the argument that christians and science leaning agnostics have. If you were to simply point out to christians that the mysticism in their bible is science without the fancy words, then maybe they can move past some of their arguments. And to the agnostics, I would point out that if there was a creator, he would have created something with a set of rules, (or scientific laws) and used a material that could be altered for all purposes, (how many elements are there?) I mean, they are still arguing semantics after all these years. Well, the same can be said for this very debate. Are we all forgetting that it was never about ability, it is about shared ideas, and moral views? About the fact that there are MANY who disagree with the "naturally gay" debate, and their views don't allow for this type of behavior? I mean, in the end, if we are attacked, I only care if the guy next to me can shoot straight.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
I merely remind you that My argument is that there is a double standard being applied by both sides of this debate. That neither sides respects or agrees the other at all.

I agree completely which is why what I suggest is basically a move that must come from homosexual soldiers as a concession towards the discomfort or prejudices or intolerance or moral issues that the other soldiers have the right to feel.

The idea is maybe at sometime gayness won't be an issue anymore and integration will be an issue that can be reevaluated later. Nothing is going to change with today's policies of "hide and deny."

I think it is similar to the argument that christians and science leaning agnostics have. If you were to simply point out to christians that the mysticism in their bible is science without the fancy words, then maybe they can move past some of their arguments. And to the agnostics, I would point out that if there was a creator, he would have created something with a set of rules, (or scientific laws) and used a material that could be altered for all purposes, (how many elements are there?) I mean, they are still arguing semantics after all these years. Well, the same can be said for this very debate.

This should be a thread on that religion board here somewhere. It is totally OT but this is exactly what I have been trying to tell people for years. But, I think people approaching agnosticism from a religious background have a tendency to consider the anthropomorphizing of god as natural.

Are we all forgetting that it was never about ability, it is about shared ideas, and moral views? About the fact that there are MANY who disagree with the "naturally gay" debate, and their views don't allow for this type of behavior? I mean, in the end, if we are attacked, I only care if the guy next to me can shoot straight.

OK, I understand better where you are coming from now. Allow me to say that by not taking the view that it is natural you are elevating(lowering?) this to essentially a religious debate. You find the state of being gay abhorrent to you and that is fine.

I am sure many fellow soldiers have various immoral belief that you don't give a second thought because it is their damned right to believe them as long as they are loyal to their Constitution and people first. If you want to make it about belief, then why is their anything wrong with the homosexual belief that they are naturally gay? You don't have to like it but it is their right to believe it after all.

Jon

reply to post by Voxel


WHOA!
I was just thinking, maybe we could start a thread together on the topic of semantics in the greater God or god debate, when you hit me with your closing remarks! Gay people abhorrent? Where do you find the validity for that argument? I never said that, and have WAY to many gay friends and associates to feel comfortable even secretly believing this! I am a christian, but only so much that I find the blood of Christ to be necessary for the redemption of my soul. (But I do not attend their sanctimonious and hypocritical churches.) Um, I commit like, 100 sins a day. I may find the gay lifestyle, or sexual aspect of it anyway, to be unappealing. But I find them to be no less of a man , and no more of a sinner, than I. If you are near in age to me, or older, then you know what I've meant all these posts about the over sexualization of American culture, and the interest I have in the new generation of gay "breeders". That all along, it was the brashness, one that is not conducive to raising young children or having a stable relationship, that I have a problem with. And this is again, gay or straight. (there is a way off topic post about what this has done to our world, this whole "free love movement". Disease, broken families, lost communities) but remember, morality, because it has tangled roots in religion, will always be admonished. Who said that a loving relationship between two committed individuals is a bad thing? Not I.

But we are off topic. My point stands, and I think we all agree, that there needs to be an unforced, and natural, paradigm shift.
-Jason

And my belief of the origins of a gay persons identity are not based in religion, tyvm!

[edit on 22-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]

This has been a really good discussion so far.

I can't even think of anything to add.

reply to post by Annee


Well thank you. Um, you could flag it, and star the posts you like maybe? That might encourage the discourse to continue, maybe even bring others into the topic... just a thought... but thanks for the add!

I have seen so many gay members in the military that makes conclude that its just a matter of time for the "ban" to be lifted.

I personally dont have a problem with it as long as they follow the rules and discipline, custom and courtesies, demonstrate military bearing while wearing the uniform and conduct themselves properly while off duty. This are the same rules that any other member has to follow so is not like im signaling gays or lesbian to follow a specific set of rules.

The other thing got to be comfort not only for straight members but for homosexuals members also, make separate showers and dormitories this has to be a must at least during the first couple of years.

Lastly, the UCMJ would have to be revised and updated as many of the laws that are currently in place as far as personal conduct do not address issues that might arise by this integration.