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

Here is the full article just posted on yahoo 5 min ago

news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by johnnie_walker


About damn time really. I personally think this is the most ridiculous law ever, and for it to have lasted 17 years is astounding to say the least.

I watched this interview the other day
Dont Ask Dont Tell Interview
It's a damn long video, but highlights a few troops personal stories with the Dont as dont tell policy, and it opened my eyes to how ridiculous a law it was, and how you can lose your place in the military for being "Outed", it just annoys me.

It's a joke that this law ever excisted and it's about time it's being ended.

Star & Flag for bringing this to my attention

I hope it Sticks.

Too many times two steps forward - one step back (or maybe even one step forward - two steps back).

Not holding my breath.

I really hope this ban sticks it will be good for our military and maybe more people will join now

What a joke and what a biased article.
Ah well Obama won't have to make another hard decision, I guess it was to be expected, I'm sure Nancy and Harry are celebrating too, seeing as how the whole deal is now on some rogue judges shoulders.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
What a joke and what a biased article.
Ah well Obama won't have to make another hard decision, I guess it was to be expected, I'm sure Nancy and Harry are celebrating too, seeing as how the whole deal is now on some rogue judges shoulders.

wow someone is really mad. lol IM REALLY HAPPY im glad the ban happened and im glad the law was abolished

reply to post by johnnie_walker


Nope not mad. Just disgusted. So a liberal judge makes an end around Congress and the MIlitary over an issue she's biased about and it's a good thing? Nope. Makes me wonder what else will be done in the same manner. I also noticed that it frees Obama and his crew from any responsibility.....they can sit on the fence still. Well, we didn't do it, she did, I can see that coming a mile away. Maybe they should have her rule on Arizona's immigration law, maybe she can do something about Guantanamo...you know relieve Obama of all decision making and yet allow him to keep his campaign promises vicariously through her. What a joke.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by johnnie_walker

 

Nope not mad. Just disgusted. So a liberal judge makes an end around Congress and the MIlitary over an issue she's biased about and it's a good thing? Nope. Makes me wonder what else will be done in the same manner. I also noticed that it frees Obama and his crew from any responsibility.....they can sit on the fence still. Well, we didn't do it, she did, I can see that coming a mile away. Maybe they should have her rule on Arizona's immigration law, maybe she can do something about Guantanamo...you know relieve Obama of all decision making and yet allow him to keep his campaign promises vicariously through her. What a joke.

you are getting off topic and i dont appreciate it. please stay on topic and be nice if you are going to post in my threads. thanks have a good night. lol and your post.... what a joke.

reply to post by johnnie_walker


You ask people to be nice and then look at your last sentence. Not off topic at all, if she can go around Congress and the Military to do this, with a biased perspective no less, why couldn't she do those other things? I wasn't not nice, whatever that means, I guess you only want people to agree with you or something, ot gonna happen. She was wrong in doing this, end of story.

reply to post by johnnie_walker


he's not being off - topic he's just expressing his opinion....i think he's wrong, but its still his opinion.

Don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional...it should be repealed, and its about time someone had the cojanes to step up and do it.

reply to post by Snarf



I'm not for gay rights and I'm not gay. I think it's a sin. But what I am furious about is the fact that it shouldn't matter if your gay or straight if you want to defend your country and your freedom you should absolutely be able to wether ur gay or not.

reply to post by johnnie_walker


Not going to solve anything.

I was in the military for 5 years. When they want people gone, they get gone. A few negative comments on job performance in the person's service record book, and you aren't re-enlisting.

reply to post by Darkrunner


You are correct. I was in the military for 8 years and change. If your unit hierarchy has you in the sights, your toast. There really isn't any recourse other than PCS without making bad worse. No HR to complain to, there WILL be consequences if you cause undo attention with a formal complaint unless it is something very serious.

I myself never really had any issues other than a hairline fracture in my foot that didn't heal for months due to base policy on not extending PT profiles but a long field deployment took care of that. I also had a 1st Sergent who HATED people leaving the military with an exit bonus (VSI/SSB) and tried everything to flag someone so they could not leave with the bonus money.. what an a$$ he was. I have seen first hand what happens when someone gets on the sh! t list. Some deserved it due to incompetence, others did not.

If your unit hierarchy has you pegged. Your going to be barred from re-enlistment. There are numerous ways to "do" this.

Gays are fine until you have to figure out how to live with them.

Take whatever offense to that you want - it's the real brain-bender behind homosexuality and the military, and it has little to do with tolerance and everything to do with logistics and legal concerns.

Think of it this way - a homosexual male is neither male nor female, but asexual. Alright - sounds cool and modern in a single-celled organism kind of way. So, he gets to walk around and see what gets off to in the showers if we stick him with males (which is like berthing a male in a female berthing - uncomfortable for everyone). So, we stick him with the females, instead - however, this goes against the whole reasoning for segregating male and female berthing.

So, do we create a "homo-M berthing" - stick all the homosexual males in a separate berthing? Attack subs are going to LOVE this MILPERS mandate.

But there's a problem with that, too. See - Homosexuals are allowed to be practicing homosexuals, now. So, we stick a bunch of people potentially willing to have sex with each other in the same sleeping quarters. I can't hook up with a female and share berthing with her aboard ship or in the open bay. Why should homosexuals have this privilege?

And that's before you toss in the problem of bisexual individuals.

Homosexuality has no place in the military as a practice. Period. It is not conducive to good order and discipline, interferes with the ability to complete the mission, and has a negative impact on morale.

Don't -ask-don't-tell allowed homosexuals to serve so long as they were not engaging in an act that has been demonstrated to have a negative impact on unit performance. It's no different than forbidding drug usage - whether you like using drugs, or not - military service forbids you from using them. Don't-ask-don't-tell just protected homosexuals from having to participate in "random homo screenings."

Oh my, by some replies one could swear that gays and other men with various degrees of same-sex attraction entered the military just yesterday, and now there is this HUGE, sudden problem to solve.
Gays have been in armies since pre-Christian, pre-Greek and Roman times.
Even apartheid South Africa never had a problem conscripting gay men. In fact they (rather falsely) said the army will make you straight. The treatment of recognizable gay men varied greatly - but yes, we had queer units in some places. It had nothing to do with showers and naked guys (get over it). Troops would come to the gay section to talk out their problems, and there were always small things like flowers and curtains to remind them of home. OK, there were occassional drag shows - but the guys loved it.

The way this all sounds, I wouldn't show and tell, I'd flap my wrists and shriek!

reply to post by Aim64C


That makes sense to me.

Having homosexuals in the service can also, as you alluded to, effect unit cohesion which lowers a unit's readiness and can hurt the "mission".

reply to post by Mayson

Not sure I get the full meaning, since the existence of gays in the US army is acknowledged (I once read 200 000 personel, otherwise why even have the debate?).
So why do they not already disturb unit cohesion?
There were gay soldiers in the World Wars and Vietnam, this is well documented.
So perhaps the statement should rather be: having openly known gays will disturb unit cohesion.

However, is that the problem of a gay soldier, or a homophobic unit?

reply to post by Mayson


It's not so much homosexuals in service. While there are always gay jokes being thrown around (just as there are jokes about other men's taste in women) - and there are always discussions about whether or not the guy walking with a swagger is really gay or not - it's not that big of a deal.

It's not a big deal, now, because two guys or two girls hooking up with each other have to keep it relatively secret.

It's a whole different issue when you start considering rights. Women have a right to a form of privacy from men - they sleep, bathe, and relieve themselves privately. When you throw homosexuality in the mix - it gets weird, especially when you allow an open statement and practice thereof.

Things are "fine" the way they are, now. The military is not a place to try and campaign or prototype civil rights issues. Nothing about the military has to do with civil liberties or freedoms. I signed an 80-year Non-Disclosure Agreement when I enlisted. I have to maintain a valid contact information (they have to know where I am), I am restricted with regards to what kinds of public activities I can be involved in (protests/rallies are generally off-limits, though it's not really an issue unless you wear your uniform and thereby associate the military with whatever rally). I have to ask permission to go farther than about 90 miles from the base (depends on each command's policies). I have to submit to random drug screening, searches of my berthing, grooming and cleanliness standards, pass physical exams, and am only legally entitled to one hour of sleep and one meal per day.

There are all kinds of requirements - many of them completely arbitrary. Why, to get an "outstanding" on a 1.5 mile run, does a 19 year old have to complete the run in less than nine minutes, but a 20 year old has 9:15? That's a "low" outstanding, in both cases. It's entirely arbitrary - like the requirement to be able to do 42 push-ups in 2 minutes (bare minimum). But we have to subject to them.

I may sound harsh - but if gays find that the military lifestyle does not appeal to them, then they should fulfill their contract and not re-enlist when they hit their EAOS. That is what other people do when they find they are in disagreement with the requirements that come along with wearing the uniform.

reply to post by Aim64C

I'm not sure I understand all this. Why throw the problam back at gay staff?
I read Randy Shilt's Conduct Unbecoming years ago and the policy was to actively sniff out gays and follow people into their private lives, and even stake out gay bars with military police. www.amazon.com...
As far as one can see here, there is no carte blanche for gay soldiers to suddenly "queer-up" the army and have a constant gay parade.
It is actually normalizing the situation, and taking away a lot of anguish, pain and fear in an already stressful occupation. It will help soldiers to focus better on their jobs. And surely a more focused soldier is better in any unit.
It seems what people fear is actually some gay stereotype that doesn't exist.

Oh, and if people are so worried about bathing with gays or women (a masculine stereotype of perpetual horniness?) - then how can they ever be deployed in countries where the locals don't even have private toilets and showers?
How could they ever control themselves, or their shame (sarcasm).
Is that thinking good soldier material?

Good heavens, hippie students get naked with gay guys and women without any drama.
I'm sure America's finest can handle it.

reply to post by halfoldman


Homosexuality was declared to be incongruent to military service back in 1982 DoD-wide. Sodomy, however, has always been prohibited (technically, they can kick you out for fellatio or anal sex - regardless of who your partner is).

Clinton signed the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, which essentially protected service members from being asked about their sexual orientation. It does not protect you if the information is voluntarily surrendered, but it is not required of you to enter into or continue military service. In essence - it ended the witch-hunt phase. Additionally, it has always been at the Commanding Officer's discretion to choose to proceed with discharge based on charges of homosexual conduct.

Presently - homosexuals can serve in the military, but homosexual conduct is prohibited, as are "I'm pretty, witty, and gay" speeches of coming out of the closet.

Homosexual conduct has no place in the military - period. If there are people out there who are seriously distracted from their job by "who around me could be gay" - then allowing people to serve openly isn't going to suddenly improve that person's performance.

Oh, and if people are so worried about bathing with gays or women (a masculine stereotype of perpetual horniness?) - then how can they ever be deployed in countries where the locals don't even have private toilets and showers?
How could they ever control themselves, or their shame (sarcasm).
Is that thinking good soldier material?

They don't bathe with the locals in the overwhelming majority of cases. It's not really an issue. We also have rather strict policies in effect in regions where there are such considerable cultural differences.

Good heavens, hippie students get naked with gay guys and women without any drama.
I'm sure America's finest can handle it.

I honestly don't give a damned if they made it a free-for-all shower. The problem is that it's only a matter of time before we start seeing court-cases crop up from homosexuals in military service wanting their own time to shower, and other homosexuals not too keen on the idea of bathing with other homosexuals (it's not unlike letting men and women bathe together, no? Why do we provide for separate facilities in the first place?). How do we protect their rights as practicing homosexuals or bisexuals or... whatever?

Surely "America's Finest" should be able to handle integrated berthing and bathing. I wish the uniform did somehow turn us all into "finest" individuals... The truth hit me like a damned freight train when I enlisted and actually expected to join a group of mature adults. No one ever truly escapes high school.