Ace of Spades HQ

December 23, 2010

A Note on Gay Rights, "Messy Democracy", and the Courts
— Gabriel Malor

Jennifer Rubin, WaPo's new conservative blogger, riffs on Krauthammer's recent column, which suggests that, whether you agree with it or not, DADT repeal was achieved more properly because it was done through Congress rather than through the courts. Right up front, let me say: I absolutely agree with Krauthammer that these issues are best resolved when taken up by Congress (and at the state levels by legislatures and voter referenda) than by the courts.

But Rubin goes a step further, arguing that because it is better for gay policy goals to be decided by Congress, gay "activists" should demonstrate "political maturity" and forego lawsuits.

Although it may be too much to hope for, it would be a sign of political maturity, not to mention intellectual consistency, for gay rights activists to take the same approach with regard to other items on their agenda. If they can persuade 65 senators to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," can't they trust the voters in various states to decide marriage and other gay rights issues? If they agree that we are in the midst of that "generational change," (as some Senate Republicans argued during the DADT debate), then it would seem to be a smarter political tactic to work on changing hearts and minds, and then legislation, through elected leaders.

This argument, or a variation, is a fequent complaint about gays. For example, after the Prop 8 vote, it was not uncommon to see folks suggest that the lawsuits should be dismissed because "the voters have spoken." In comment threads about the Log Cabin Republicans' DADT lawsuit, it was often stated the lawsuit should be dismissed because Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the military and Congress has spoken.

But this argument entirely misplaces the purpose of the Constitution and of the courts. Certain congressional actions are expressly curtailed by the Constitution, regardless of how popular they are. This was, in the words of President Thomas Jefferson (recorded in Stuff Jefferson Said, 3rd Edition, Revised), "the whole fuckin' point."

I wonder if Rubin similarly hopes for "political maturity" from the following people:

(1) Individuals who are banned from showing a movie about a politician in advance of elections and who believe this ban to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the First Amendment.
(2) Individuals in D.C. and Chicago who are banned from possessing firearms and who believe those bans to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the Second Amendment.
(3) Individuals who want to keep local and state governments from seizing their property to give it to other rich, politically-connected individuals and who believe such seizures to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the Fifth Amendment.
(4) Individuals who are forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance and who believe that imposition is not within the constitutional powers of the federal government.

If these individuals file lawsuits, should they be sneeringly referred to as "activists" and told that they should demonstrate "political maturity" and "intellectual consistency" by sitting on their complaints until Congress (or state legislatures) get around to addressing them? Of course, I'm referring to the much-lauded plaintiffs who won in Citizens United, Heller, and McDonald, the plaintiffs who unfortunately lost in Kelo, and the plaintiffs in the multiple ObamaCare lawsuits currently pending.

Each group of individuals believed that their rights were being unconstitutionally denied and acted appropriately: they went to the courts for a constitutional remedy. That doesn't mean they are politically immature or even necessarily "activists." (To be sure, some were: the Heller and McDonald plaintiffs were specifically assembled to bring Second Amendment challenges before the Roberts Court. But the Kelo and Citizens United plaintiffs weren't. The government came after them, so they went to the courts for help.) That is no different from the lawfully married spouse of a federal employee who the government refuses to add to the employee's health insurance; the spouse has been wronged, and a constitutional remedy, if there is one, lies with the courts. The same is true for when the military discharges someone under DADT; that person has been wronged and a constitutional remedy lies with the courts.

In none of the cases listed above was the constitutional remedy assured (in fact, the Kelo Court denied the remedy). All were issues not yet addressed by the Supreme Court. But the plaintiffs believed that they had a constitutionally-protected right, and so they went to the courts to vindicate that right. That is the normal course of things (at least since Marbury v. Madison) and there is nothing "politically immature" about it, even though it bypasses "all that messy democracy", as Rubin puts it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:35 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.

1 The examples you cite fail to feature the sort of obnoxious sanctimony that characterizes our dear friends-the gay civil rights crusaders.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at December 23, 2010 05:42 AM (o2QOm)

2 I refuse to get into an argument about this. It's Christmas and I have a cold and I have decided I am going to go back to bed and not think about stuff like this.

It would have been better if this could have been passed earlier in the year, rather than shoving it in our faces at Christmas time, which is what Obama did with his big celebration (500 people) that got more enthusiasm from him than awarding the Medal of Honor.

Back to bed I go.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 23, 2010 05:48 AM (Fo83G)

The REAL problem with lawsuits over "Rights" is that there is no other check on Federal Power. When the Federal Government, is the only arbiter of Federal Power? Of course there will be abuses.

The Senate was designed to be the States House, ie to be direct representatives of the States... and Grand Jurys used to be self directed entitys which could look at the Government itself... now both of those checks on Federal power are gone.

There is a "Right" to Petitiion for Redress... but no mechanism in place for it to bbe done EXCEPT through the Courts, which once again are part of the Federal Government itself.

Its things like, the Courts have said its OK for the Police to lie to you, but NOT for you to lie to the Police... or that if YOU had Racial Quotas for things you'd be in Jail, yet the Feds and COURTS do it all the time... that make ya go.... Hmmmmm....

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 05:49 AM (AdK6a)

4 Gabe, of your four examples, three consist of violations of rights that are specifically and explicitly protected in the constitution and one that is an expansion of federal power that obviously violates the 10th amendment. The idea that there is any such thing as a constitutionally protected "gay right" is laughable and was known to be such until recently.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 23, 2010 05:49 AM (7EV/g)

5 Gay civil rights?

Try gay marriage, - which is an absurd notion.

Posted by: Fritz at December 23, 2010 05:51 AM (GwPRU)

You haven't cited a single example of lawsuits attempting to overturn something expressly decreed by voters in a referendum.

McCain-Feingold, the carry laws, the property seizure, the health-care bill, all passed by duly elected representatives - in the case of healthcare over strenuous public-opinion objections. The anti-same-sex marriage crowd knows that popular referenda have more force and more credibility than diktats by proxy.

You are comparing apples with oranges. You want another example to cite? How about Prop 186, denying lavish benefits to non-citizens, and passed by the voters of California. Are the people who sued to overturn it the same upright constitutional crusaders as the same-sex marriage advocates who vandalized Mormon churches are trying to overturn Prop 8?

Posted by: Lou at December 23, 2010 05:53 AM (IH3P2)

7 Your argument fails because with DADT there were no rights being violated. As such, citizens should not bring such lawsuits. Abusing the Constitution like this only serves to rip yet another tear into the document.

I should point out these sorts of false equivalencies are a hallmark of the left.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 05:53 AM (7BU4a)

My problem with it is that, if they win a single lawsuit (out of hundreds, and they will file hundreds, hell, thousands, until they win one), that suddenly becomes the new standard and precedent to which every court must bow and every law of the land must be overturned to accomodate the new precedent, never mind if those laws being overturned stood up to judicial scrutiny a thousand times before. But only as long as the new precedent favors liberal policies, of course.

The whole concept of precedent is a one-way ratchet for enacting liberal policy. A thousand conservative decisions are treated as completely immaterial as soon as liberals can find a single liberal judge anywhere willing to ignore all of -those- century old precedents.

And that's the problem with your examples, Gabe. In all of them - every single one - the remedy being sought was for government actions that directly contradicted centuries of precedent. That's why they can't righly be called activism, because all they're asking for is what's always been understood as being the law of the land. To attempt to maintain the status quo is not "activist". Gays are seeking to dismiss centuries of precedent in order to get their way, and using the one way liberal ratchet of the courts to do so. THAT is what makes them activist, not merely that they use the legal system.

Posted by: Qwinn at December 23, 2010 05:54 AM (9zHDv)

9 Maybe Rubin is worried that openly gay servicemembers might sue to receive equal benefits that heterosexual spouses enjoy, etc. DADT repeal opens a can of worms that gay activists have undoubtedly anticipated.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 23, 2010 05:54 AM (mHQ7T)

10 Oh, and as another point, how exactly is it that it is ok for the military to proscribe any number of sexual interactions between willing adults, except, apparently, if the participants now are of the same gender?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 05:55 AM (7BU4a)

11 (1) Individuals who are banned from showing a movie about a politician in advance of elections and who believe this ban to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the First Amendment.
(2) Individuals in D.C. and Chicago who are banned from possessing firearms and who believe those bans to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the Second Amendment.
(3) Individuals who want to keep local and state governments from seizing their property to give it to other rich, politically-connected individuals and who believe such seizures to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the Fifth Amendment.
(4) Individuals who are forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance and who believe that imposition is not within the constitutional powers of the federal government.

And

The same is true for when the military discharges someone under DADT; that person has been wronged and a constitutional remedy lies with the courts.

One of these things is not like the others... can you find it?

Posted by: kdj0172 at December 23, 2010 05:55 AM (mdGpP)

12 *Pulls out tattered copy of United States Constitution.*

*Searches for authority for federal regulation of marriage*

Ahhh, here it is:

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Posted by: Andy at December 23, 2010 05:57 AM (veZ9n)

13 Maybe Rubin is worried that openly gay servicemembers might sue to receive equal benefits that heterosexual spouses enjoy, etc. DADT repeal opens a can of worms that gay activists have undoubtedly anticipated.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 23, 2010 09:54 AM (mHQ7T)

You know, if Obama's commanders are being honest about removing DADT only after considering its actual implications thoroughly, best case is that is will still take years.

The military still has problems with how it integrates male and female service members, and this will be an order of magnitude more difficult.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 05:58 AM (7BU4a)

14 a constitutional remedy, if there is one, lies with the courts

There's your problem, right there. The courts, with their asinine creation of rights and disregard for the clear intent of the law over the last 50 years, have lost any connection in people's minds to constitutionality. They are just a bunch of self-indulgent would-be dictators. Had they adhered to their intended role, your point would be valid. As is it, their credibility is gone, and that is a dangerous situation indeed. This is what a living constitution gets you.

Posted by: pep at December 23, 2010 06:02 AM (8lSIO)

15 Of COURSE the federal government has to regulate marriage! It just wouldn't be "productive," if it just made sure the laws are enforced and the country is defended.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 06:06 AM (tJjm/)

16 Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 09:55 AM (7BU4a)

The military will still ban sexual behavior the way it always has. Nothing in the repeal of DADT changes that.

The only important issue is whether DADT repeal will hurt or help the military. I, and many others, think it will hurt. But these silly straw men that people set up damage the arguments against repeal of DADT.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 23, 2010 06:06 AM (LH6ir)

17 She was good on the ricochet podcast. I don't pay to comment there, but it's a good podcast.

Posted by: Zakn at December 23, 2010 06:07 AM (zyaZ1)

The military still has problems with how it integrates male and female service members, and this will be an order of magnitude more difficult.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 09:58 AM (7BU4a)

+100

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 23, 2010 06:07 AM (LH6ir)

19 They are just a bunch of self-indulgent would-be dictators. Had they adhered to their intended role, your point would be valid. As is it, their credibility is gone, and that is a dangerous situation indeed. This is what a living constitution gets you.

Posted by: pep at December 23, 2010 10:02 AM (8lSIO)

Jefferson, I believe, ultimately proved to be correct in his thinking on constitutionality. Namely, that no individual branch gets to decide such - each branch must consider the constitutionality of laws/regulations/etc individually

Of course the problem is the Left already does their own version of this. Obama will not enforce laws he disagrees with. The courts rewrite the constitution at a whim, etc.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 06:07 AM (7BU4a)

20 Gabe, of your four examples, three consist of violations of rights that are specifically and explicitly protected in the constitution and one that is an expansion of federal power that obviously violates the 10th amendment. The idea that there is any such thing as a constitutionally protected "gay right" is laughable and was known to be such until recently.

This guy saved me two minutes of typing.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 23, 2010 06:08 AM (r1OG3)

21 I am still firmly in the we won camp though

Posted by: Zakn at December 23, 2010 06:08 AM (zyaZ1)

22 I fully expect that carrying a bible, wearing a crucifix, etc. will be viewed as hate speech, and prosecuted as such. Going to church will be equated to attending a Klan rally. Accept the gay lifestyle, or else.

Posted by: H8ter at December 23, 2010 06:08 AM (0ba8c)

The military still has problems with how it integrates male and female service members, and this will be an order of magnitude more difficult.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 09:58 AM (7BU4a)

Take the argument of unit cohesion, for example. I never doubted our fighting force's professionalism. But women cannot serve in combat units. From my understanding, it's not because of stereotypes that are often applied to gays, as well, but because you are in a life-or-death situation and sharing tight, close quarters and distracting personal drama could arise. The military will adapt, but while we are in two wars, I hope it doesn't cause unnecessary casualties.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 23, 2010 06:09 AM (mHQ7T)

24 The military will still ban sexual behavior the way it always has. Nothing in the repeal of DADT changes that.

You can't be serious here, can you?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 06:10 AM (7BU4a)

25 Gabe, Here's a question for you: If you were NOT gay... How would you feel about gay marriage? Seriously, try to be as objective about it as possible.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 06:10 AM (tJjm/)

26 Gays, CAIR, the ACLU, illegals, and the unions are maturely using the political weapons we've given them: go find a judge.

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 06:11 AM (kho+0)

27 The Balrog has a point, but I side with Gabriel's argument. It is that very obnoxious sanctimony that concerned me about DADT. I thought about my four military years (back in the early seventies) when women were suddenly put into traditional male roles (USAF flightline in my case). The first wave of WAFs were, in large part, sanctimoniously obnoxious. But they were there, where no women tread previously, because of the very nature of their personalities, i.e., a desire to be on the front edge of something. Military history since then has shown that, over time, the personality curve of women in certain military roles moved from non-random to the normal bell curve - the assholes are still there but they are balanced out by prevalence to the norm (largely non-asshole). I predict the same with DADT. The first out of the closet will be the ones who will plan their leave next year for San Francisco's gay rights parade. Fortunately, the military through leadership and a certain peer pressure to step up to the program will sort this out as well or better than any other component of our society. Back to Gabe's point - most these battles have to be fought in the courts because, if the aggrieving actions were not tolerated (or popular) by the political class, they would not be occurring in the first place. That's the beauty of your constitution - above all it balances a belief in the human spirit with the reality of the bell curve.

Posted by: Handyman at December 23, 2010 06:11 AM (8xYyJ)

28 I don't give a shit one way or the other. My main issue is reduce the size of government, reduce all the gov't agencies like the FCC, FDA, EPA and so on that are constantly taking away our rights and nagging us to death. But that doesn't seem to be happening at all, so more and more I care about less and less. Bah humbug to modern civilization.

Posted by: cali grump at December 23, 2010 06:13 AM (hL0k8)

29 If the founders were around now, they'd recommend revolt. so citing them is a non sequitor.

We have 538 tyrants.

I should care way more about what happens in St.Paul than Washington.

Posted by: Zakn at December 23, 2010 06:13 AM (zyaZ1)

30 Ah gay rights and homosexuals and lesbians (not to mention transgender and bisexual folks--have to get it all you know). The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, is now the Love That Won't Shut The F*%k Up!

Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 23, 2010 06:13 AM (3ESDJ)

31 Back to Gabe's point - most these battles have to be fought in the courts because, if the aggrieving actions were not tolerated (or popular) by the political class, they would not be occurring in the first place. That's the beauty of your constitution - above all it balances a belief in the human spirit with the reality of the bell curve.

So, any time a group doesn't agree with the political class, we should just leave it to a bunch of benevolent dictators to command a fix? What is the limit on their power? It used to be the constitution. What is it now? (serious question)

Posted by: pep at December 23, 2010 06:14 AM (8lSIO)

32 I didn't think we'd be seeing Gabe or any other gay conservatives around here for a while. Are they letting these guys blog from Basic Training or what?
Anyway, congratulations on your enlistments and I hope the experience is exactly like you've been telling us all it would be.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 23, 2010 06:17 AM (AzcBR)

33 Assign the openly gay soldiers to guard duty at Gitmo. The Detainees will do mass suicide. Win-Win.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 23, 2010 06:17 AM (o3bYL)

34 you can't tell me that this will not affect the gay marriage issue.......uh sir, i'm gay and i have a union with my partner but he/she isn't getting benefits....they can't shop at the base store unless i'm there..........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 06:18 AM (eOXTH)

35 Somebody woke up in a pissy mood today.

Posted by: Pull My Finger at December 23, 2010 06:19 AM (KDK+Z)

36 the chaplain won't marry us! he's bigot

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 06:19 AM (eOXTH)

37 Gabe, I think you've stepped on your crank with the proverbial golf shoes with this one. Of COURSE it's activism. You'd have a case if gays took their legislative and legal defeats and said, "guess we were wrong." But no, they'll keep shopping judges until they find one who will rule for them in defiance of centuries of civilization, American legal precedent and common sense. It is the very definition of immaturity. Keep playing until WE win.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2010 06:20 AM (tappe)

38 Obama could show his support by demanding he be given an openly gay Color Guard (or whatever the term is) for his state visits. He might seem a little overeager when bowing to dictators in the future, but they might be flattered.

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 06:21 AM (kho+0)

39 20

The military still has problems with how it integrates male and female service members, and this will be an order of magnitude more difficult.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 23, 2010 09:58 AM (7BU4a)

+100

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 23, 2010 10:07 AM (LH6ir)

But you will not hear about the problems with integrating Women into units, because the word is out that to speak of those problems, is carreer suicide.

The Military is the only major group in America where you CAN control their speech, and actions, and associations... by force of Law. Thus problems can, and are, swept under the rug...

Its instructive that my Son, Active Duty Navy, was instructed NOT to talk about DADT.

Yes, the military will say "Yes Sir", and do what ever shitty job handed to it... but its to OUR shame that we make their job harder.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 06:23 AM (AdK6a)

40 I happened to watch the repeal ceremony of DADT up at West Point with a bunch of Senior Enlisted types. They were non to pleased. As for me I saw that the "gay" community made a "party" out of the signing. Disgusts me. Personally I don't give a rat's ass what anyone does with who's ever ass they wish. Just keep it zipped and and keep it in private.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 06:25 AM (0GFWk)

41 FAIL.

The days of dressing up anal sex in flowery civil rights language are over.

Pure leftwing propaganda.

Posted by: pam at December 23, 2010 06:27 AM (uDwml)

42 Teh gheys are tiresome.

Posted by: Only on Thursdays at December 23, 2010 06:27 AM (bPTcD)

43 As for me I saw that the "gay" community made a "party" out of the signing. Disgusts me.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 10:25 AM (0GFWk)

Would have been lovely (oh no... goin gay!) to have some Recruiters show up at those Gay parties... with enlistment papers...

/in a Clint Eastwood voice, straight out of Heartbreak Ridge..

"Ok little Girly men... you got your right to take long hot barraks showers together... now sign the F'n papers..."

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 06:29 AM (AdK6a)

44 The Military is the only major group in America where you CAN control their speech, and actions, and associations... by force of Law. Thus problems can, and are, swept under the rug...

But then you have the occasional Major Nidal Hassan, who would have been dismissed except he was a protected minority class serving within our armed forces. Now there is a new one.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 23, 2010 06:30 AM (mHQ7T)

Two counterpoints, Gabe;

When people call activist in one case and not another, it isn't an indictment of the process in one case, but an implicit judgement of the merits of the cases. One can abuse the system by bringing cases without merit even through the proper channels.

Second, I think there is a fundamental difference between seeking to test a new act of congress and seeking to use the courts to overturn a societal norm well established at the time of the constitution.

That said, I'd welcome anyone to try their luck with the courts, if I believed that applying he written text reasonably was their goal, rather than justifying a predetermined decision.

Posted by: Randy at December 23, 2010 06:31 AM (GtTYq)

46 I'm still disgusted that the story about Anne Hathaway liking it in the squeakhole was false. I'd fight for her right.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2010 06:32 AM (tappe)

47 But then you have the occasional Major Nidal Hassan, who would have been dismissed except he was a protected minority class serving within our armed forces. Now there is a new one. Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 23, 2010 10:30 AM (mHQ7T) Absofuckinglutley

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 06:33 AM (0GFWk)

48 Interesting timing. You pick the day after the DADT fiasco to post this? Really? I'm not sure you get the whole political maturity thing, Gabe.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 23, 2010 06:33 AM (TMB3S)

49 The military still has problems with how it integrates male and female service members, and this will be an order of magnitude more difficult.

The problem is, no one wants to admit it.

I've said elsewhere, if the Army was smart, they'd issue orders ending any gender segregation or differentiation. Same PT standards, same barracks and latrines, same grooming standards and haircuts. It would kill participation by women in the service, but would allow the Army to honestly and efficiently crack down on discipline issues, and would cut off arguments from the militant feminists and homosexuals about any notion of special 'rights' for their protected classes.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 06:34 AM (yY28H)

50 52

DADT is so yesterday. Gays being allowed to serve in the military magically morphed from being an essential human liberty to being just another job option. And not a very popular one, I'm guessing.

All. A. Scam.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 23, 2010 06:36 AM (AzcBR)

Would have been lovely (oh no... goin gay!) to have some Recruiters show up at those Gay parties... with enlistment papers...

I have friends who supported repeal of DADT. Next time I hear them talking about how wonderful it is, I'm going to ask them how many gays and lesbians they know who have signed up.

None? Well isn't that a big fucking surprise...

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 06:36 AM (yY28H)

52 Pep, I don't see the courts as benevolent dictators. Their job is simply to follow the constitution. Whether this always happens is another argument that I suspect we both come down on the same side of. That's why the real battleground is in the selection of the judiciary. Progressive judges are like herpes - the gift that keeps on giving. In any event, I cannot think of a better system, so if we don't get it fixed there is no viable Plan B.

Posted by: Handyman at December 23, 2010 06:38 AM (8xYyJ)

53 Why is any of this important in a country with 10% unemployment. A country in a war for survival with a savage barbarian ideology. A country facing bankruptcy. How does any of this do anything good? How does the inch-worm revocation of Biblical morality help a nation that was founded on that morality? Once this is acceptable then those that sleep with animals, or want children can advance their argument, and who are YOU O, gay person that created "rights," out of thin air to argue? What would be your argument? Anyone see the connection of the loss of morality in this country with its economic, and political downfall? America for 90 years supplied 90% of the Christian missionary effort to the world. We are now in the last few decades down to number 4. Why the hell should God bestow any special blessings or privileges upon us as a nation. Watch the world burn while you extract every last "right," for yourselves, spoiled children indeed.

Posted by: Getting Ready for Beer Summit at December 23, 2010 06:38 AM (jb90v)

None of those are examples where serious social change is being foisted on the country.

These 'rights' have never been acknowledged in our country before. Before you shove them down our throats in the courts, you need to persuade people that they exist--politics is the way to do that, not courts.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 23, 2010 06:42 AM (epBek)

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 23, 2010 10:30 AM (mHQ7T)

Oh, trust me... there are other protected classes within parts of the Military, but the closer you get to the tip of the Spear, the less of that you do have (at least until you go home..)..

I had to deal with the whole "women not being represented" issue while I was Active (I'm ret. Navy)...

In the 80's Navy promotion boards had 3 Stacks of records to choose from... Women, Minorities, and then us White Guys... my guess is there will soon be a fourth stack...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 06:45 AM (AdK6a)

56 Seeing Gabe get smacked around on this is like an early Christmas present.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 23, 2010 06:46 AM (kOMUP)

57 And what about my right to have impromptu Tribbing Parties in public? I get really bored on the subway.

Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at December 23, 2010 06:47 AM (HaYO4)

58 The left thinks that if they dispense ~~with~~ that knowledge of Good and Evil They are the elite beings, so they get to pass judgement. It's an easy job- whatever they like to do is good, everything else (like eating bacon) is evil.

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 06:48 AM (kho+0)

59 n the 80's Navy promotion boards had 3 Stacks of records to choose from... Women, Minorities, and then us White Guys... my guess is there will soon be a fourth stack... Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 10:45 AM (AdK6a) So maybe I should declare myself gay to get to the head of the line. So to speak? /just kidding I guess

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 06:49 AM (0GFWk)

60 With any issue concerning the military, here should be the #1 consideration - Does "X" increase the capability of the US Military to do its job (i.e. kill our enemies and break things)? If the answer is a solid "no", drop the issue.

The military should not be used as a social experimentation lab.

If DADT is now the law of the land, then lets get rid of all unit segregation, whether it be by sex or orientation. Have everybody bunk together and meet the exact same standards.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 23, 2010 06:52 AM (9hSKh)

61 I just love how the military is now being ordered to submit to the whims of the very people that hate the military the most: liberal ass fuckers. Never in my life have I heard a Conservative ever say, "I hate the military." I can't count how many times I've heard these asshole liberals say it. Yet we're supposed to pretend they have the military's best interest at heart.

I'm not anywhere near that fucking stupid.

Posted by: some1 at December 23, 2010 06:53 AM (0F7Xm)

Two things:

First, when the fuck did SJS come out in a THIRD edition? I just fuckin' got the second edition (at considerable expense, I might add).

Second, I kind of agree with both arguments. Things ARE much better addressed properly through laws. But laws that violate the Constitution need to go away. The Constitution is specifically designed to protect to a certain degree the rights of the minority. It is, exactly, the whole fuckin' point. However, there is a problem when courts violate the Constitution. The Kelo decision was blatently, entirely, and completely a repudiation of the Constitutional protection of private property. Remember, the whole land deal fell apart, because it was a matter of speculation -- the public was actively HARMED by the actions taken by the town's managers. Land speculation is hardly in the public interest. But now it is, and no home is safe. The decisions that have long since nullified the commerce clause are all equally horrid. I can only hope that the justices involved spend several eternities getting assraped by the barbed cock of Satan, but that may be wishful thinking.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at December 23, 2010 06:53 AM (Pl6My)

63 Have everybody bunk together and meet the exact same standards. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 23, 2010 10:52 AM (9hSKh) Yeah ya can't really do that. The standards are pretty equal for all considering women have different body types than men. And their Physical Readiness Test minimums are not all that much different than for men.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 06:55 AM (0GFWk)

64 How far are we from strapping one of those European penis meters on troops to measure arousal as a means to ensure an even distribution of promotions for gays?

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 06:55 AM (G5WHn)

65 Obviously, the only solution is to have an all-gay military, lead of course by Harvard and Columbia graduates, who have proclaimed a change of heart about "" now that DADT has been passed. Then we can all sleep better at night, DADT's companion piece, The Unilateral Disarmament Agreement notwithstanding. With all this, and Lady Gaga as Acting Secretary of Defense, what could go wrong?

(And for those who caught Mark Steyn yesterday, we don't have to worry about encountering

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at December 23, 2010 06:57 AM (PZLW0)

The need to have sex with the same gender is obviously a disability, either physically or mentally. Allowing said types to enter the military should only be considered as a last resort, like any other disability.

Posted by: Dumbfounded at December 23, 2010 06:57 AM (ZPyqu)

67 DADT repeal opens a can of worms that gay activists have undoubtedly anticipated.

It's never about the inch. It's about the yard.

Posted by: nickless© at December 23, 2010 06:58 AM (MMC8r)

68 The need to have sex with the same gender is obviously a disability, either physically or mentally. Allowing said types to enter the military should only be considered as a last resort, like any other disability. Posted by: Dumbfounded at December 23, 2010 10:57 AM (ZPyqu) Nah. We're all sick fucks in one way or another. It's just I don't want to know your deviation and you don't need to know mine.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 06:59 AM (0GFWk)

69 The military still has problems with how it integrates male and female service members, and this will be an order of magnitude more difficult.

The problem is, no one wants to admit it.

I've said elsewhere, if the Army was smart, they'd issue orders ending any gender segregation or differentiation. Same PT standards, same barracks and latrines, same grooming standards and haircuts.

Gabe, we're still waiting for you to cheer on a lawsuit/Congressional action that tears down discrimination along gender lines. The fact that 'honorably serving service members (who are serving) are cruelly pre-judged and segregated by gender is a crime. So where's the love for equality now?

Oh that's right. This wasn't about equality. This was a crusade to create a protected minority status for one group.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:00 AM (1O93r)

70 #70 should have ended ... encountering another Philip of Macedon. (Just in case anyone really cares.)

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at December 23, 2010 07:01 AM (PZLW0)

71
Yeah ya can't really do that. The standards are pretty equal for all considering women have different body types than men. And their Physical Readiness Test minimums are not all that much different than for men.

The minimums are not the same. Women have to do less than half the number of pushups in order to get to 60 points, and are allowed an extra two minutes on the run.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 07:01 AM (yY28H)

72 The minimums are not the same. Women have to do less than half the number of pushups in order to get to 60 points, and are allowed an extra two minutes on the run. Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 11:01 AM (yY28H) Yes i know that, but by en large, the women I serve with are in pretty good shape.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:02 AM (0GFWk)

So now you have the Army Rangers and the "Army" Rumprangers. Fabulous!!!! :p

Posted by: Dumbfounded at December 23, 2010 07:04 AM (ZPyqu)

74 nevergiveup - "pretty good shape" doesn't get the pig or the mortar baseplate up the fourth hill of the afternoon.

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 07:04 AM (7Jipo)

75 If we gave every gay person 100 million dollars each would they shut the fuck up? Is this the only fucking thing we have to worry about?

Posted by: Ken Royall at December 23, 2010 07:06 AM (9zzk+)

76 nevergiveup - "pretty good shape" doesn't get the pig or the mortar baseplate up the fourth hill of the afternoon. Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 11:04 AM (7Jipo) No and by and large women are not being asked to do that. And whatever you think of women in the Military, don't think for a minute, that we could function today without women in the Military.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:06 AM (0GFWk)

77 nevergiveup - "pretty good shape" doesn't get the pig or the mortar baseplate up the fourth hill of the afternoon. Posted by: Jean

I was an 0331 (M-60 machine gunner). I wasn't allowed to have such luxuries as two whole minutes. I was expected to hump the gun, bipod or tripod, extra barrels, a mitt with which to change out barrels and as many belts as I could carry. And I was never in combat. That was SOP for peacetime ops. You usually pawned off some gear on others, but you were expected to do this.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:07 AM (1O93r)

78 Can't wait for the news to start. There are some interesting articles over at drudge. Captain Don't Ask Don't Tell About My Past in Hawaii, China to bail out the EU (that should end well), Europe buried in fluffy global warming...

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 07:07 AM (kho+0)

79 "Gay rights" is utter, complete bullshit.

The sine qua non of a civil right is that the class in question consists of people who possess an immutable attribute or condition that is physical and/or genetic in nature: Blacks, women, Hispanics, the physically disabled.

Homosexuals possess no such attribute.

Sexual attraction has never, up until about 5 minutes ago, been classified the same as sex or, race, or physical disability.

Sexual attraction is about nothing more than where you prefer to put your pecker.

If we're going to create a new protected class for gays, then we have to create a new protected class for people who like to put their pecker only in farm animals, or only in little kids.

If you want to get your panties in a wad because I'm comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, then congratulation... you're on your way to getting the point.

It is ridiculous to think that bestialists or pedophiles deserve "rights" as a protected class.

But it's no more ridiculous than thinking that people who can only get off while dressed as a nurse deserve to be a protected class, or that people who are attracted only to redheads deserve to be a protected class.

Either homosexuality is about where you prefer to put your pecker, in which case bestowing upon gays the "rights" of a protected class is idiotic; or homosexuality is a trait on par with race or sex, in which case would homosexual "rights" advocates please present us with something even remotely resembling evidence that it is a genetic, immutable trait.

Posted by: an erection lasting longer than four hours at December 23, 2010 07:08 AM (ao9DD)

80 Never in my life have I heard a Conservative ever say, "I hate the military."

We might start saying things like that when the SEIU marines are rounding us up for expressing our thought crimes here on AOSHQ.

Posted by: Follower of Cthulhu, former republican at December 23, 2010 07:09 AM (F/4zf)

81
Yes i know that, but by en large, the women I serve with are in pretty good shape.

Many of the ones I serve with as well. That doesn't change the fact that there are real, significant differences in physical capability. What you call 'pretty good shape' is still less than a lot of the male soldiers. The problem is, no one wants to admit it, because if you do, then you're crucified as a bigot. You can't sit there and talk about opening combat arms to women, and ignore the differences in physical capabilities, but that is exactly what is happening. That's why we keep calling for an end to any differences in the standards: it will force an honest discussion.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 07:09 AM (yY28H)

82 It's a very easy call if this is a good or bad thing. Whatever Barry is for is bad and whatever he's against is good. And since Barry was so enthusiastically for this it must be just awful. The jerkoff is only for things that give himself and his party more power and tear down the country and its institutions.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 23, 2010 07:10 AM (1Jaio)

83 Or maybe this one: Brookline Principal Gerardo Martinez says "permission slips wonÂ’t be necessary for students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance."

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 07:10 AM (kho+0)

84 56 Pep, I don't see the courts as benevolent dictators. Their job is simply to follow the constitution.

If that were so, and they did their job, there would be much less of an issue here. Sadly, that isn't so. I'm not sure what your definition of a benevolent dictator is, but I can think of few better examples than Breyer, Sotomayor, Marshall and Brennan.

I hope you are wrong about there being no other viable options. When the government loses the consent of the governed, it rarely ends well. We absolutely agree on the need to stop putting judicial activists on the SC. Barring that, pitchforks and nooses are almost inevitable.

Posted by: pep at December 23, 2010 07:10 AM (8lSIO)

85 And whatever you think of women in the Military, don't think for a minute, that we could function today without women in the Military. Posted by: nevergiveup

Yes, yes we could. Would it result in restructuring, perhaps similiar to how the services were organized in World War II? Yes. Could it be done? Yes. The question should be, whom do we permit (note the choice of words) to serve, on the basis of what benefits they bring to the military versus costs of assimilation.

That question was fudged where women are concerned, and the lies and organized suppression of dissent have already started regarding gays.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:10 AM (1O93r)

Gabe: Right up front, let me say: I absolutely agree with Krauthammer that these issues are best resolved when taken up by Congress (and at the state levels by legislatures and voter referenda) than by the courts.

I don't think you believe this. This is a throw-away line. Because right after it comes the inevitable "However..."

Posted by: ed at December 23, 2010 07:11 AM (QLhy5)

87 nevergiveup - #1 we should have PT standards by MOS, not by gender, #2 this experimentation with gays could have likewise been implemented in a limited line of service, I don't think there would be a outcry over a few gay dentists, #3 if we are going to retain gender segregation by MOS - why not keep people with sexual fetishes that are detrimental to good order and discipline out as well.

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 07:11 AM (Ja6pC)

88 Many of the ones I serve with as well. That doesn't change the fact that there are real, significant differences in physical capability. What you call 'pretty good shape' is still less than a lot of the male soldiers. The problem is, no one wants to admit it, because if you do, then you're crucified as a bigot. You can't sit there and talk about opening combat arms to women, and ignore the differences in physical capabilities, but that is exactly what is happening. That's why we keep calling for an end to any differences in the standards: it will force an honest discussion. Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 11:09 AM (yY28H) But as I said above, women are not being asked to do the same things as men in the Military for the most part. Tighten up the standards a bit, I got no problem with that, but from what I have seen, I have no real problem what so ever with the women I serve with. As a matter of fact there a few I suggest you not fool with.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:13 AM (0GFWk)

89 No and by and large women are not being asked to do that.

Yet. The push has been on for a while to open combat arms to women. It's driven largely by the left, who believe this crock that there are no physical differences between men and women, and by compliant military leaders who are too cowed to argue that women don't meet the same physical requirements as men, and to a large degree cannot without severe medical problems.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 07:13 AM (yY28H)

90 Yes, yes we could. Would it result in restructuring, perhaps similiar to how the services were organized in World War II? Yes. Could it be done? Yes. The question should be, whom do we permit (note the choice of words) to serve, on the basis of what benefits they bring to the military versus costs of assimilation. That question was fudged where women are concerned, and the lies and organized suppression of dissent have already started regarding gays. Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:10 AM (1O93r) I think we would up the creek without more than a few paddles with no women in the Military. Maybe not front line, but in supply, medical, legal, logistics, and on and on we'd be knee deep in troouble

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:16 AM (0GFWk)

Suffice to say, "gay marriage'" is neurotic homos playing a game of "Let's Make Believe".

Bradlkey Mannings comments provide further evidence that homos are very neurotic,

and extremely delusional.

THAT is why the Marine Corps doesn't want them.

Posted by: Brian at December 23, 2010 07:16 AM (sYrWB)

92 http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

Posted by: Darksbane at December 23, 2010 07:19 AM (pv8vN)

93
But as I said above, women are not being asked to do the same things as men in the Military for the most part. Tighten up the standards a bit, I got no problem with that, but from what I have seen, I have no real problem what so ever with the women I serve with. As a matter of fact there a few I suggest you not fool with. Posted by: nevergiveup

Cause, meet effect. If all branches were opened tomorrow, and quotas of women, gays, blacks fill in the blank were dictated to comprise all units, we'd then finally have an honest appraisal of how various groups do. This will not happen. Women get lifted off of surface combatants and field situations due to pregnancy and no word is dared said. Men do not have that option. The fact that the Pentagon looks to fulfill overall needs and that women in particular are not allowed in certain billets results in inequity for men to get billets that don't result in field conditions or getting your head shot off.

Is anyone here stupid enough to think that Gabe cares and will cheer on a lawsuit about that?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:19 AM (1O93r)

94 And whatever you think of women in the Military, don't think for a minute, that we could function today without women in the Military.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:06 AM (0GFWk)

Patent Bullshit.

The Military woudl function just as it did for many many years without Women in the Military. Been there... done that...

Its instructional that although Women make up MORE than 50% of the population, they make up ONLY 14.5% of the Active Military... after an entire GENERATION of "equal opportunity" in the military (started in the late 70's, went viral in the 80's).

My guess is that Gays, who make up about 4% of the population according to Gov stats... will have an even smaller ratio of enlistment.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 07:19 AM (AdK6a)

"I've said elsewhere, if the Army was smart, they'd issue orders ending any gender segregation or differentiation. Same PT standards, same barracks and latrines, same grooming standards and haircuts. It would kill participation by women in the service..."

Hell yes. There is now no reason at all to have gender segregation in any form whatsoever. Having the same PT standards for women will destroy the junior enlisted promotion flow for women and, like you say, kill their participation.

Wait for the trannies. That'll be fucking rich.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:21 AM (fLHQe)

96 I think we would up the creek without more than a few paddles with no women in the Military. Maybe not front line, but in supply, medical, legal, logistics, and on and on we'd be knee deep in troouble

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:16 AM (0GFWk)

I'm interested in your opinion as to Why?

Women make up less than 15% of the military. My SON had to wait on Delayed Enlistment for almost a YEAR to join... ergo I can't see a "manning" issue (forgive the pun)...

Or are you of the opinion that women are better at some jobs??

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 07:21 AM (AdK6a)

THAT is why the Marine Corps doesn't want them.

Posted by: Brian

I was a Marine. The Marine Corps has the worst housing (largest percentage of open squad bays) and the largest percentage of combat billets. And it was there that even the skewed, dishonest 'survey' ( the one that was not confidential as was reported, even here) clearly stated that there would be major problems. And all of that is being ignored.

When activists such as Gabe ignore random bits of truth that appear in a taxpayer paid bit of political chicanery, you can be assured that the fix is in.
Pontificating about lawsuits is not merely irrelevant; it's an act.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:23 AM (1O93r)

It's telling that Gabe won't even lower himself to the comment thread to defend his argument.

What was that about maturity?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:23 AM (fLHQe)

The thing that gets me is that now you can get on board this new protected class by a simple declaration. No more arbitrary things like skin color or foreign sounding names.

Just declaring yourself to be gay.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:25 AM (fLHQe)

100 >> It's telling that Gabe won't even lower himself to the comment thread to defend his argument.

He has a day job. For all we know he's sitting in a conference room with his eyes glazed over looking at some stupid PowerPoint right now.

Posted by: Andy at December 23, 2010 07:26 AM (veZ9n)

101 104

It's telling that Gabe won't even lower himself to the comment thread to defend his argument.

What was that about maturity?

Posted by: Burn the Witch

The problem is intellectual dishonesty. That he has in spades (pun intended). If you have a problem with that Gabe, talk to Ace. He and I have corresponded, and he has my real name.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:26 AM (1O93r)

102

Just declaring yourself to be gay.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 11:25 AM (fLHQe)

OK.... I hearby declare myself to be Gay....

Yep, I'm a Lesbian trapped in a Man's body... with a built in Sex Aid!

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 07:27 AM (AdK6a)

103 Will refusal to deploy with gays be grounds for CO status?

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 07:27 AM (aemFw)

104 Patent Bullshit. The Military woudl function just as it did for many many years without Women in the Military. Been there... done that... Sorry today is not yesterday. And I don't see why we should hurt our Military because some people have a problem with women in the Military. Most women in the Military I have met are just as dedicated and compedent as the men. Most do not "get pregnant" to get out of deployments.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:27 AM (0GFWk)

105 On the bright side, no one has devolved into third grade reject jokes. So life is good.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:28 AM (1O93r)

106
Sorry today is not yesterday. And I don't see why we should hurt our Military because some people have a problem with women in the Military. Most women in the Military I have met are just as dedicated and compedent as the men. Most do not "get pregnant" to get out of deployments.
Posted by: nevergiveup a

No one said what you claim.

1. Can the US military survive without women? This was answered by several people. Yes.
2. Can women contribute to the modern US military? Yes. I've seen it in action.
3. Is the deployment of women resulting in inequity and a double standard? Yes, in several ways, which were noted by several people here.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:30 AM (1O93r)

107 And whatever you think of women in the Military, don't think for a minute, that we could function today without women in the Military.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:06 AM (0GFWk)

Glad to see people already calling bullshit on this line of bullshit.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:30 AM (fLHQe)

108 No one said what you claim. 1. Can the US military survive without women? This was answered by several people. Yes. 2. Can women contribute to the modern US military? Yes. I've seen it in action. 3. Is the deployment of women resulting in inequity and a double standard? Yes, in several ways, which were noted by several people here. Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:30 AM (1O93r) 113 And whatever you think of women in the Military, don't think for a minute, that we could function today without women in the Military. Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:06 AM (0GFWk) Glad to see people already calling bullshit on this line of bullshit. Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 11:30 AM (fLHQe) Most Medical Units are over 50% female..Good luck replacing them if you have no females

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:34 AM (0GFWk)

109 Sorry today is not yesterday. And I don't see why we should hurt our Military because some people have a problem with women in the Military. Most women in the Military I have met are just as dedicated and compedent as the men. Most do not "get pregnant" to get out of deployments.
Posted by: nevergiveup a

This is precisely the problem being repeated with gays as the new "we must have them, we all die without them". We won't. We get by with 14% women when they comprise over 50% of the general population. We're now being told that any criticism of women in the military is tantamount to purging the US military of women. Utter bullshit. The US military of WWII used women in everything from nursing to ferry piloting. And they didn't have the stupidtiy and protected class that the modern military suffers from.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:35 AM (1O93r)

110 We need a happy thread.

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 07:35 AM (IDL9N)

111 I would really like to see the distribution of the population used for that DADT study. It would be interesting to see how such an anonymous, complex document was distributed and responded to by globally deployed force so quickly - when a few months ago ballots could not get to them. My working assumption would be that those forward deployed or at sea - those with the most concerns - were also the least represented.

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 07:37 AM (HKVGZ)

112
Most Medical Units are over 50% female..Good luck replacing them if you have no females Posted by: nevergiveup

And prior to WWII they were 100% male. This is idiocy. Start a SEED program for men in high school to become nurses in the military, free education, and problem solved. That's the reason that many women are joining. The same holds true fro many doctors. Two of my MALE relatives did exactly that.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:37 AM (1O93r)

113 We need a happy thread.

We need boobies!

...what? Boobies make me happy.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 07:37 AM (yY28H)

114 This thread is deader than a guy popping a woody in a US Marines shower room.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 07:37 AM (tJjm/)

115 Have you heard the forecast for Korea? Partly cloudy with temperatures in the high 1800s. 30% chance of survival. The five day forecast? Three days!

Posted by: Excuse the expression - Christmas Spirit at December 23, 2010 07:38 AM (xxgag)

116

Posted by: donabernathy at December 23, 2010 07:38 AM (IvFdV)

117 We need a happy thread.

Posted by: Y-not

Second that.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:38 AM (1O93r)

118 Sorry today is not yesterday. And I don't see why we should hurt our Military because some people have a problem with women in the Military. Most women in the Military I have met are just as dedicated and compedent as the men. Most do not "get pregnant" to get out of deployments.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:27 AM (0GFWk)

Your premise is that the military is somehow superior, with less physicly adept people, than it would be with a stronger baseline? That it would "hurt" the military?

And on the Battlefield??? Or on Naval Deployments??? yes, it is pretty much just like yesterday. The rules have not changed because you don't like reality.

Please point out how, in your reasoning, it would HURT the miltary ITSELF to be all Heterosexual Male? And I'm talking the Militarys REAL purpose, ie Combat.

I find it instructional, that the Military General's don't share your opinion, as women are not in various types of units....

Ergo, the ONLY reason it would hurt the military is if Women were somehow superior at some jobs.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 07:38 AM (AdK6a)

119 This is precisely the problem being repeated with gays as the new "we must have them, we all die without them". We won't. We get by with 14% women when they comprise over 50% of the general population. We're now being told that any criticism of women in the military is tantamount to purging the US military of women. Utter bullshit. The US military of WWII used women in everything from nursing to ferry piloting. And they didn't have the stupidtiy and protected class that the modern military suffers from. Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:35 AM (1O93r) Sorry not the same thing. I am against the repeal of DADT

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:38 AM (0GFWk)

120

My guess is that Gays, who make up about 4% of the population according to Gov stats... will have an even smaller ratio of enlistment.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 11:19 AM (AdK6a)

But wait, we've been hearing how detrimental it's been to the military to have lost soooooo many of teh gays and not to have that vast recruiting pool from which to draw!

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:38 AM (fLHQe)

121 And prior to WWII they were 100% male. This is idiocy. Start a SEED program for men in high school to become nurses in the military, free education, and problem solved. That's the reason that many women are joining. The same holds true fro many doctors. Two of my MALE relatives did exactly that. Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:37 AM (1O93r) Today is 2010 not 1941

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:39 AM (0GFWk)

122 A rational person will recognize that, in a combat situation, neurotic homos will present a very real danger not just to other soldiers, but to themselves, also, and those mentally unstable homos are no damned good to anybody if they're dead and/or if they're getting other soldiers killed, unreported incidents of which have already occurred, of that I am absolutely certain, for which we can thank more PC bullshit by irrational jackasses in the MSM, many of whom are neurotic homos themselves.

Posted by: Brian at December 23, 2010 07:39 AM (sYrWB)

123 nevergiveup - is your argument that we should integrate gays as we have done with women (limited lines of service) or as this aside started with your comment that women have to meet the same PT standards as men and that there is some sort of equality in the ranks.

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 07:40 AM (Ja6pC)

124 If you were NOT gay... How would you feel about gay marriage?

Has this been established definitively by Gabe? His frequent neener-neener pro-ghey activist issue posts are a tell, but I never read anything he has written confirming same.

Overlooked in the DADT repeal runup was the fact that the overwhelming majority of gheys in the military surveyed indicated that even after repeal they would remain silent as to their sexual lives. Why would that not be cited as evidence that the gheys that the policy affects most support it?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 23, 2010 07:40 AM (r1OG3)

125 Most Medical Units are over 50% female..Good luck replacing them if you have no females

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:34 AM (0GFWk)

We have over 300 million people in this country. Stop deluding yourself that the military would have problems filling any MOS. Especially in this economy.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:41 AM (fLHQe)

126 And prior to WWII they were 100% male. This is idiocy. Start a SEED program for men in high school to become nurses in the military, free education, and problem solved. That's the reason that many women are joining. The same holds true fro many doctors. Two of my MALE relatives did exactly that.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:37 AM (1O93r)

Today is 2010 not 1941 Posted by: nevergiveup

What does this even mean? No guys in high school want to be doctors or nurses? Particularly if the government picks up the tab on education, and they get 2-5 years experience in the field? It must be women or nothing? Really? And you can prove this? Or are you enshrining the latest status quo?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:41 AM (1O93r)

127 The important thing is now that gays can openly serve we can have more lawsuits and get one step closer to fed recognition of gay marriage. That's what this really about.

Posted by: that guy at December 23, 2010 07:43 AM (hBNpq)

128 Your premise is that the military is somehow superior, with less physicly adept people, than it would be with a stronger baseline? That it would "hurt" the military? And on the Battlefield??? Or on Naval Deployments??? yes, it is pretty much just like yesterday. The rules have not changed because you don't like reality. Please point out how, in your reasoning, it would HURT the miltary ITSELF to be all Heterosexual Male? And I'm talking the Militarys REAL purpose, ie Combat. I find it instructional, that the Military General's don't share your opinion, as women are not in various types of units.... Ergo, the ONLY reason it would hurt the military is if Women were somehow superior at some jobs. 1) Your making a blanket statement that todays Military is physically inept compared to yesteryear's Military. I don't buy that. 2)I don't understand what your saying 3) It would hurt the military because in todays world and today's Miitary Women are doing vital jobs and doing them well, as well as any male. 4 And I have said over and over and over again that women are NOT in most combat units but only in support roles. And most of the Generals do share my view

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:43 AM (0GFWk)

129 Is Gabe really arguing that gays sidestepping congress to get an activist judge to fuck over voters is in any way related to an actual redress of constitutional violations such as the ones he cited? That's pretty crazy. Sort of the "comparing the ban on gay marriage to black slavery" crazy conservatives are really tired of hearing. Sure let the gays sue. I don't remember anything about a right to marriage in the Constitution but what do gays care. They feel entitled. And it's easier to convince one activist judge then a state full of voters.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at December 23, 2010 07:43 AM (6ftzF)

130

We have over 300 million people in this country. Stop deluding yourself that the military would have problems filling any MOS. Especially in this economy.

Posted by: Burn the Witch

To be honest, they were having problems finding people stupid enough to be machine gunners in 1981. I got a signing bonus just to do that. I'm sure that women are rarin' to carry a 27 pound piece of iron up and down hills.

Are they still using the M-60 by the way?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:44 AM (1O93r)

131 I agree with you Gabe that the court cases should not be stopped due to "political immaturity". I would argue though that should have been stopped for intellectual immaturity due to the fact that these cases, legally, are entirely frivolous and brought simply because judges can be found who would entertain them regardless of that fact. The idea that there is even one SCOTUS Justice, who are supposed to be the legal creme de le creme of our society, that would take seriously the idea there is something in existing law which sets out these "gay rights" is just ridiculous.

Whatever your position on "gay rights" is one thing is for sure. They are an entirely new concept and as such should be dealt with legislatively which includes the idea that the people can entirely preclude any governmental recognition though amendment.

Posted by: Rocks at December 23, 2010 07:44 AM (Q1lie)

132 27 Gabe,

Here's a question for you:

If you were NOT gay... How would you feel about gay marriage?

Seriously, try to be as objective about it as possible.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 10:10 AM (tJjm/)

Oh please gabe can't do that. He actually thinks he's being objective about it now. He just posts straight up news you know. He loves to be posting like he's "above it all" on these kinds of things because if he ever attempted to insert his own arguments he'd be destroyed because they have no merit beyond that he himself is gay and wants them. And he actually believes this fact doesn't show through when writing this stuff. wg

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 07:44 AM (oVQFe)

133 nevergiveup - is your argument that we should integrate gays as we have done with women (limited lines of service) or as this aside started with your comment that women have to meet the same PT standards as men and that there is some sort of equality in the ranks. Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 11:40 AM (Ja6pC) I'm against the repeal of DADT and I NEVER said that women meet the same standards as men!

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:44 AM (0GFWk)

134 Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:41 AM (1O93r)

Or just use civilians until the pipeline fills with men. This is, as you point out, a non-issue.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 23, 2010 07:45 AM (LH6ir)

135 119 We need a happy thread.

We need boobies!

---

_{*lifts shirt*}

Hey, I'm a giver.

But, of course, your request for boobies just proves what a homophobe you are.

Or something.

Seriously, let's hi-jack this thread for a good purpose. It's been a crap year, but we somehow managed to prevail (in some areas). There is nothing to be gained by arguing 'til we're blue in the face about an issue that has become so twisted with distortions (my personal favorite being "it's not a behavior, it's genetic") that we have no rational common ground from which to argue.

This is the best time of year. We should be thankful for that. There's time enough to win the argument about this other crap next year.

Anyway, I am grateful for this place and for the morons (and moronettes). And I hope that those of us who have had bad years are able to prevail and see a better 2011... and that those of us who have had good years can use some of that psychic energy they've been able to store up to help folks less fortunate.

"Ho ho ho, dammitt!"
-- Gumby

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 07:46 AM (IDL9N)

136 For The Love of GOD, can we have a new thread, PLEASE??

Posted by: A Cask of Amontillado at December 23, 2010 07:46 AM (tJjm/)

137 We have over 300 million people in this country. Stop deluding yourself that the military would have problems filling any MOS. Especially in this economy. Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 11:41 AM (fLHQe) And if you saw the article the other day so many of them are physically and intellectually disqualified, that yes I do think we would have a problem and non of that matters anyway. Women are in the Military and for the most part doing a fantastic job just like their male conterparts.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:46 AM (0GFWk)

138 And most of the Generals do share my view Posted by: nevergiveup

Most of the generals have proven themselves to be political animals who threaten their own troops (hi Adm Mullen; fuck you too). The only one who chose not to do that was the current Commandant of the Marine Corps, and gay groups want him fired for daring to speak something other than the party line.

We're still waiting on Gabe to support him by the way.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 07:46 AM (1O93r)

139 (xxgag), which begs for socks, North Korea will have to wait. World's Leader Barry is getting some well-deserved r&r after courageously signing a bill, and won't be back in the country for a while. Could they possibly postpone nuclear war until we make sure gays are able to openly practice in the front lines?

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 07:48 AM (kho+0)

140 Most of the generals have proven themselves to be political animals who threaten their own troops (hi Adm Mullen; fuck you too). The only one who chose not to do that was the current Commandant of the Marine Corps, and gay groups want him fired for daring to speak something other than the party line. We're still waiting on Gabe to support him by the way. Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:46 AM (1O93r) Please try and keep your arguments straight. I am talking about women in the Military, not gays.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:49 AM (0GFWk)

141 Posted by: A Cask of Amontillado

I'm a Pedro Jimenez gal myself. Mmmm... sweet raisiny nectar of alcoholic goodness.

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 07:49 AM (IDL9N)

142

Has this been established definitively by Gabe? His frequent neener-neener pro-ghey activist issue posts are a tell, but I never read anything he has written confirming same.

Overlooked in the DADT repeal runup was the fact that the overwhelming majority of gheys in the military surveyed indicated that even after repeal they would remain silent as to their sexual lives. Why would that not be cited as evidence that the gheys that the policy affects most support it?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 23, 2010 11:40 AM (r1OG3)

Yes Gabe is gay. He even had himself a little crying blurb in a post when Prop 8 in California passed because he was dumb enough to go and get married before it passed. So you know all his talk about how the courts doing stuff like legislating from the bench doesn't really matter to him when it gets him his way. But he won't normally post like that because he's "above it all" and just posting straight up news.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 07:49 AM (oVQFe)

143 Or just use civilians until the pipeline fills with men. This is, as you point out, a non-issue. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 23, 2010 11:45 AM (LH6ir) Using civilian contractors can cost a fortune

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 07:50 AM (0GFWk)

144 Jesse Ventura proves that 9/11 was a fraud. No Muslims, no hijacking, no box cutters, all Dick Cheney.

Merry Christmas!

Posted by: Excuse the expression - Christmas Spirit at December 23, 2010 07:50 AM (xxgag)

145 BTW and when I say "They are an entirely new concept and as such should be dealt with legislatively" I do not mean as Gabe suggests that legislatively is the "best" remedy. It is the SOLE remedy. There is no wrong committed under existing law. There is no judicial remedy available.

Posted by: Rocks at December 23, 2010 07:50 AM (Q1lie)

146 He has a day job. For all we know he's sitting in a conference room with his eyes glazed over looking at some stupid PowerPoint right now.

Posted by: Andy at December 23, 2010 11:26 AM (veZ9n)

Oh I'm not holding my breath that he'll ever be down in this comment thread. Like most gay activists, he can just fire and forget. We're just supposed to Accept the InevitableÂ™.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:51 AM (fLHQe)

147 Are they still using the M-60 by the way?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 23, 2010 11:44 AM (1O93r)

M-240G

(Well, at least that's what the Corps switched to a few years before I retired.)

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:52 AM (fLHQe)

148 Hey, look at this, it's an amusing link about "the worst tv series endings"!

Posted by: Y-not desperately tries to change the subject at December 23, 2010 07:53 AM (IDL9N)

149 And if you saw the article the other day so many of them are physically and intellectually disqualified, that yes I do think we would have a problem and non of that matters anyway. Women are in the Military and for the most part doing a fantastic job just like their male conterparts.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 11:46 AM (0GFWk)

I'm well aware of DQ factors. And there are still shit-tons of young men that are ready, willing, and able to fill every. single. billet.

I'm not saying women aren't doing a fantastic job. I've served with many that do. I'm just saying that your "It's not 1941" barely even makes sense, let alone carries any argumentative weight.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 07:56 AM (fLHQe)

150 _{*lifts shirt*}

Hey, I'm a giver.

*snaps picture*

Yay boobies!

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 07:57 AM (yY28H)

151

Nobody has mentioned this in the entire thread:

So when the draft comes around next time, who will be the first gay activist that says that, in fact, gay men are not able to integrate properly into a military organization and that they should not be subject to the draft?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2010 07:58 AM (BvBKY)

152

I'm sorry, but when they can convince me that their strong civil union has to be called "marriage" for some actual reason, I'll be more open to their antics. Seems like just a way to go after the churches.

Comparing it to the right to bear arms is just laughable. Can't you just see the founders sitting around in a candle lit room and deciding to leave "homosexual relations" or whatever they called it then, probably sodomy, out of the constitution? But then again, Madison was just a bargainer, right?

Posted by: dagny at December 23, 2010 07:58 AM (DS1Ec)

153 150 Jesse Ventura proves that 9/11 was a fraud. No Muslims, no hijacking, no box cutters, all Dick Cheney.

Merry Christmas!

Posted by: Excuse the expression - Christmas Spirit at December 23, 2010 11:50 AM (xxgag)

HAHAHA. I got to his second point and stopped reading. That is the favorite line of the Truthers. Too bad that there was plane wreckage at the Pentagon site. There are even photos of it.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 07:59 AM (oVQFe)

154 But then, since the Marine Corps' motto is, find em, feel em, fuck em and forget em, it could be that the Marine Corps' Commandant is worried theat deprived, depraved, always horny and oversexed recruits in boot camp will develop romances with other recruits. That is another possibility.

Posted by: Brian at December 23, 2010 07:59 AM (sYrWB)

155 Right up front, let me say: I absolutely agree with Krauthammer... With my understanding of the word 'absolutely', I could have ended the post right there.

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 08:00 AM (kho+0)

156 Look I think we are going in circles. I am against DADT repeal and I think women do fine in the Military for the most part. I don't think it is reasonable to think we can go backwards on women nor would we want to. Could we if we had to? I am sure somehow, but other than an intellectual argument, I don't see the point.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 08:00 AM (0GFWk)

157

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 11:59 AM (oVQFe)

If that's not evidence enough to suggest that Minnesota shouldn't have a vote in national elections, I dunno what is.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 08:01 AM (fLHQe)

158 That just goes to show that the Court is a horrible protector of Constitutional rights. If only there were some kind of system that would enforce Constitutional limits on the legislature before they passed unconstitutional laws. Maybe a legislature with two bodies, one that responded to the demands of the people for more government, and one that would enforce Constitutional limits through some kind of plan that would incentivize such a body to keep power out of the hands of the federal legislature. If only we had some really smart Founders who understood the nature of government.

If only...

Posted by: JohnJ at December 23, 2010 08:01 AM (cB5rJ)

159 Are they still using the M-60 by the way?

There may still be a few around (in Guard units??) but the M240 is the current 7.62 MG.

-----

Here's how I think the support seems so overwhelming according the military survey. Younger soldiers that are most likely comfortable in general around whatever-sexuals are also the largest in volume in the military, weighting the numbers in favor of the most tolerant demographic.

And the most junior generally have little leadership responsibility or experience. That junior cohort mostly haven't had to deal with the issues that a lot of the senior folks see the potential for. They don't have to consider issues like counseling, discipline, living arrangements, EO politics, etc on a regular basis as a part of their job.

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 08:02 AM (c7Pp2)

160 I am sure somehow, but other than an intellectual argument, I don't see the point.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 12:00 PM (0GFWk)

I guess it sort of rubs the same nerve that gay rights activists do when they talk about gays being integral to our armed forces, or when the Pres talks about Islam having such a prominent role in the sucess of the U.S.

The fact is that none of those things are remotely true and are just PC platitudes. I'll readily concede that military recruitment would definitely be harder without the pool of women from which to recruit, but it wouldn't be impossible by most realistic stretches of the imagination.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 08:06 AM (fLHQe)

161 nevergiveup - that argument your are making is that women's service, while invaluable, is somehow executed in some spirit of equality within the services and that given this thread is about gays - that they too will serve equally. This is bullshit - the gays will be accommodated and thus have more rights and privileges then the regular troops; just as women do.

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 08:06 AM (lnUW/)

162 Marbury should be done away with (by amendment?), and John Marshall should be considered a patriot on the level of Benedict Arnold.

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 08:09 AM (ABUrf)

163 nevergiveup - that argument your are making is that women's service, while invaluable, is somehow executed in some spirit of equality within the services and that given this thread is about gays - that they too will serve equally. This is bullshit - the gays will be accommodated and thus have more rights and privileges then the regular troops; just as women do. Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 12:06 PM (lnUW/) I never made any such argument about gays so don't accuse me of such

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 23, 2010 08:11 AM (0GFWk)

164 Gabe: the 4 challenges that you listed are based on rights have an actual foundation in the constitution; gay rights, especially gay marriage, are completely made up from a "living constitution".

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 08:11 AM (ABUrf)

165 The issue of women in any context here is irrelevant and extraneous bullshit ..., smoke, mirrors, a diversion and a distraction to deflect attention away from the issue, which is that gays will be happier as hairdressers, interior decorators and as website monitors.

Posted by: Brian at December 23, 2010 08:13 AM (sYrWB)

166 So when the draft comes around next time, who will be the first gay activist that says that, in fact, gay men are not able to integrate properly into a military organization and that they should not be subject to the draft?

The idea was never to integrate gheys into the military, but to integrate the military into teh ghey.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 23, 2010 08:14 AM (r1OG3)

167 There's a new thread up by ace if you guys want to escape the horror that is this one.

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 08:16 AM (IDL9N)

168 The idea was never to integrate gheys into the military, but to integrate the military into teh ghey. Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 23, 2010 12:14 PM (r1OG3) Like the Afghani army?

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 08:16 AM (ABUrf)

169 gay rights, especially gay marriage, are completely made up from a "living constitution".

Ah, but in their constitutional right to "privacy" they are constitutionally entitled to be very, very public.

And don't you dare mention that "privacy" isn't exactly in the constitution. The claws will come out.

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 08:17 AM (c7Pp2)

170 175 There's a new thread up by ace if you guys want to escape the horror that is this one. Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 12:16 PM (IDL9N) Good - who isn't tired of Gabe's torrent of pro-gay posts yet?!

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 08:17 AM (ABUrf)

171 Keep the ghey threads coming Gabe. It will distract from my defense of Modern Art in the next few weeks. Really wear em down...

Posted by: CAC at December 23, 2010 08:19 AM (lV4Fs)

172 Posted by: CAC at December 23, 2010 12:19 PM (lV4Fs) LOL! I've been trying and failing to make sense of those posts.

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 08:21 AM (ABUrf)

173 nevergiveup - then why did you bring up women's PT standards in a discussion of gay issues, it wasn't necessary to address Kratos' comment. The 'successful' integration of women into the military is continually misused by the gay community to support the repeal of DADT.

Posted by: Jean at December 23, 2010 08:22 AM (aemFw)

174 LOL! I've been trying and failing to make sense of those posts. Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 12:21 PM (ABUrf) I am a moron. I am an artist. Other morons are artists as well. We have the book thread. So, naturally, we have an art thread too. I must say- the morons are a very talented bunch.

Posted by: CAC at December 23, 2010 08:23 AM (lV4Fs)

175 Ah, but in their constitutional right to "privacy" they are constitutionally entitled to be very, very public.

I think sexual orientation should be required to be added to the dog tags, since it's (supposedly) an inherent/genetic trait.

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 08:24 AM (IDL9N)

176 Folks, our long national nightmare is over! Your opinions have been duly noted and ignored, get yourselves to the new thread!

Posted by: Barry O'Douche at December 23, 2010 08:28 AM (kho+0)

177 Here's a video you have to show to troofers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 23, 2010 08:29 AM (7+pP9)

178 183 Ah, but in their constitutional right to "privacy" they are constitutionally entitled to be very, very public.

I think sexual orientation should be required to be added to the dog tags, since it's (supposedly) an inherent/genetic trait.

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 12:24 PM (IDL9N)

Wouldn't that be something important to know too for considerations for emergency blood transfusions or any considerations for combat medics. You know HIV possibilities and all that.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 08:30 AM (oVQFe)

179 I think sexual orientation should be required to be added to the dog tags,

Maybe optional footwear, instead?

I'm still not sure how they are going to publicly handle showing up to all events wearing the same shoes as everyone else. .... that should make for a nice photoshop project for someone over the holiday weekend.

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 08:30 AM (c7Pp2)

180

Link to the video that you don't have to copy and paste.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 23, 2010 08:32 AM (7+pP9)

181 then why did you bring up women's PT standards in a discussion of gay issues, it wasn't necessary to address Kratos' comment.

I orginally made the comment that the Army should make all standards gender neutral, along with barracks and latrines. Someone made the comment that we haven't fully dealt with the problem of integrating women into the military. I agreed, and said that anyone who voiced problems with the integration of women was labeled a bigot, shutting down the ability to identify some real issues that have arisen.

The problem of DADT leads into the question of why hetero servicemen will be required to accept a room assignment with a gay soldier, but a female soldier would never be required to accept a room assignment with a straight male soldier.

Additionally, as someone posted on this site a week or so ago, there is already a push to end the exclusion of women from combat arms, and they will no doubt be emboldened by this victory.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 08:34 AM (yY28H)

182 You know HIV possibilities and all that.

HIV tests are already required on a regular basis.

Posted by: Alex at December 23, 2010 08:35 AM (yY28H)

183 173 The issue of women in any context here is irrelevant and extraneous bullshit ..., smoke, mirrors, a diversion and a distraction to deflect attention away from the issue, which is that gays will be happier as hairdressers, interior decorators and as website monitors.

Posted by: Brian at December 23, 2010 12:13 PM (sYrWB)

It was brought up in the context of how the Military is very successfull at sweeping problems under the rug. How the PC mindset can be ORDERED into existence.

And how this is already happening...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 08:37 AM (AdK6a)

184 What ever happened to: "there is a job available. The person who best meets or exceeds the requirements of the position gets the job."? Alas, we now live in a world were the opposite is reality. We change job requirements to accommodate gender, physical and mental handicaps, religion, personal preferences, and an ever changing, obscure idea of what is "fair". The inevitable result is endlessly declining standards, jobs not getting done properly, and productivity falling like a lead balloon. Meanwhile, the cost for these declining resulting is exponentially increasin, due to the never-ending accomodations and requirements to make things "fair". Sorry, for any product I buy, any service I retain, or and job I do, I expect the best results possible and for results to improve over time above the original standard. I don't care what restroom anyone uses or what porn they prefer, but if I need 150 lbs. of equipment carried up a hill, then men are better physically qualified. The answer is not "make the load lighter or the hill smaller". If the rule is "no looking at other peoples asses in the shower", the answer is not "build separate showers". It's the same for our schools. It used to be "pass or fail". If you passed, you met requirements. If you failed, then you either learned to do better and compensated for the failure, or you accepted your limitations and found something else to do that utilized what talents you have. Now it's take the test till you pass, who cares if you actually learn anything. The result is that I have had to show people with MBAs how to read a P&L and people with bachelors degrees how to add, subtract, & multiply and how to write a sentence that does not look like "OMG! U R not my BFF, H8R!!1eleventy". Is it any wonder that our country no longer produces anything while we simutaniously pat ourselves on the back that women's unemployment rates are lower than men's? Is that really an accomplishment? Thanks, I preferred the unfair world where people actually earned what was theirs, did what they were good at over what they felt entitled to, and took pride in their individual, unique accomplishments instead of claimed equal or greater credit for lesser results.

Posted by: Damiano at December 23, 2010 08:51 AM (3nrx7)

185 DADT is now the law of the land, then lets get rid of all unit segregation, whether it be by sex or orientation. Have everybody bunk together and meet the exact same standards.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 23, 2010 10:52 AM (9hSKh)

The new law continues to promote unconstitutional segregation. I demand my right to shower and bunk with all things defined as human.

Posted by: G. I. Joan Jett at December 23, 2010 09:03 AM (gbCNS)

186 But wait, we've been hearing how detrimental it's been to the military to have lost soooooo many of teh gays and not to have that vast recruiting pool from which to draw! Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2010 11:38 AM I read some comment discussion over at TAH that stated that of the 14,000 homosexuals who have been kicked out since 1993 due to violation of DADT, 85% were voluntary dismissals. In other words, only 15% of the 14,000 actually were involuntarily kicked out. 15% of 14,000 = approx 3,500. That comes out to about 205 soldiers lost per year. According to Wikipedia, our military force is about 2.4 million. 3,500 = 0.15% of the military force. So all this drama over losing 0.15% of the military force.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 23, 2010 09:05 AM (NITzp)

187 Not that I spend an great deal of time on the subject but... I thought the infection rates in Africa indicate that it is more a matter of sexual habits that determine the transmission of HIV. Specifically, repeated encounters with multiple partners is the riskiest behavior, with the type of intercourse also being a contributor but less determinate.

Or there is a lot more gay going on in Africa than we know about...

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 09:09 AM (c7Pp2)

188 I'm old, in poor shape, have bad vision and am clumsy. Why do the Marines violate my civil rights by not letting me join?

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 09:10 AM (z1N6a)

189 Did anyone else notice that at Obama's signing ceremony, a lib piped up and asked why gays didn't have a federal law requiring the states to allow gay marriage?

Posted by: trentk269 at December 23, 2010 09:16 AM (Uda+9)

190 I think it is very brave of you to come out in this way.

Merry Christmas! May the Sugar Plum Fairy be good to you, IYKWIMAITTYD.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 23, 2010 09:29 AM (VfmLu)

191 Did anyone else notice that at Obama's signing ceremony, a lib piped up

Happens so often it passes for background noise.

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 09:35 AM (c7Pp2)

192 Here's the thing you appear to have missed, Gabe: There are no gay rights in the US Constitution. There is no right to gay sex. There is no right not to be discriminated against because you're gay, any more than there's a right not to be discriminated against because you're fat, or ugly, or have no hair, or have bad eyesight. There are no such rights in ANY State Constitution, either. The ONLY way such rights will legitimately come about is when the voters, and / or their elected representatives, explicitly chose to put them in there. Like equal treatment based on skin color was put into the Constitution via the 14th Amendment. Until the "gay rights" activists get the hell out of the court system, and until all the major "gay rights" groups make a policy to oppose anyone who tries to change the law via the court system, I will be utterly opposed to any and all expansions of "gay rights." Not because I give a damn about homosexuality, but because I passionately loathe people who try to use the Courts to assault our democratic system of government. You want to change the laws? Get involved in the democratic process? And if you lose when you do that? Tough. No one has the right to force everyone else to dance to their tune. No one.

Posted by: Greg at December 23, 2010 09:41 AM (4Pleu)

193

15% of 14,000 = approx 3,500.

That comes out to about 205 soldiers lost per year.

According to Wikipedia, our military force is about 2.4 million.

3,500 = 0.15% of the military force.

So all this drama over losing 0.15% of the military force.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 23, 2010 01:05 PM (NITzp)

Math fail. For you to use 3,500 you would need to know the number of people in the military in the past 20 years. So actually its more likely you should use that 205 soldiers as your percentage. 0.15% is way too generous.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 09:51 AM (oVQFe)

194 196 Not that I spend an great deal of time on the subject but... I thought the infection rates in Africa indicate that it is more a matter of sexual habits that determine the transmission of HIV. Specifically, repeated encounters with multiple partners is the riskiest behavior, with the type of intercourse also being a contributor but less determinate.

Or there is a lot more gay going on in Africa than we know about...

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 01:09 PM (c7Pp2)

The sexual habits in Africa though tend to increase the risks of hetero sex to the risk behaviors of gay sex. Anal sex is more likely to cause some bleeding so that increases the risk of virus transmission. In Africa there is the belief that a dry vagina is better sex for the guy. This can cause bleeding as well, so vaginal sex which in america is less likely to result in transmission has just become as risky as anal sex for virus transmission in Africa.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 09:54 AM (oVQFe)

195

If you want to reduce the legitimacy of the legal system down to zero with reasonable people, redefine a term, and attack a tradition which has been settled for thousands of years.

Call it a civil union for a bundle of rights granted by legislature: fine.

Claim marriage has obviously always included same sex and you make a mockery of the legal system and history while offending nearly everyone by claiming anyone who holds the traditional (and only) view of marriage is a bigot.

Posted by: Beagle at December 23, 2010 09:55 AM (sOtz/)

196

So when everything falls apart and sanity is finally restored, we can call it a "generational change"?

Works for me.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at December 23, 2010 09:59 AM (P33XN)

197 The idea was never to integrate gheys into the military, but to integrate the military into teh ghey.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 23, 2010 12:14 PM (r1OG3)

Like the Afghani army?

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 12:16 PM (ABUrf)

Where did I read about the Pashtun guys unable to have kids after years of being boy toys? The, ah, plumbing of reproduction was too confusing. Of course homosexuality is punishable by death, while having a boy you dress up in makeup for rape is OK.

...

Nuking it from orbit...

Posted by: Beagle at December 23, 2010 10:00 AM (sOtz/)

198 Malor and his ilk don't care about combat effectiveness, nor do they care about America's ability to defend our strategic interests around the world. They only care about their agenda. . . defining their rights by their sexuality.

Someone please hand Emperor Nero his lyre.

Posted by: Yankee Mechanic at December 23, 2010 10:08 AM (SsNRK)

199 There can be no such thing as homosexual civil rights any more so than a thief can have a right to steal. We can and must regulate un-natural, un-necessary and un-productive sexual behavior.

Posted by: Sidney Allen Johnson at December 23, 2010 10:13 AM (oxyok)

200 208 There can be no such thing as homosexual civil rights any more so than a thief can have a right to steal. We can and must regulate un-natural, un-necessary and un-productive sexual behavior.

Posted by: Sidney Allen Johnson at December 23, 2010 02:13 PM (oxyok)

No we don't. But just because we don't need to regulate it doesn't mean we need to sanction it.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 10:23 AM (oVQFe)

201 Except that the gay rights agenda pushers thought they were going to win in California and were all for the "majority" of the people to decide and then when they couldn't even get a redefinition of marriage passed there they, pardon the expression, threw a hissy fit.

Posted by: Veni Vedi Veci at December 23, 2010 10:26 AM (IWKf7)

202 How did the left calling Tea Partyers bigots and Teabaggers work out for them?

Why do gay rights agenda pushers think they are going to win converts by calling us names?

Posted by: Veni Vedi Veci at December 23, 2010 10:28 AM (IWKf7)

203 Mr. T? Gay as a French Horn.

Posted by: Zombie George Peppard at December 23, 2010 10:28 AM (mM7dK)

204 Math fail. For you to use 3,500 you would need to know the number of people in the military in the past 20 years. So actually its more likely you should use that 205 soldiers as your percentage. 0.15% is way too generous. Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 01:51 PM Okay then... 205 kicked out in any given year. 2.4 million in the military. 205 = .009% of the entire military force kicked out in any given year. Point being, this is a non-issue as far as military strength is concerned. Of course, this was never about military strength/efficiency and always about a social agenda, ie using repeal of DADT as a stepping stone to push the rest of their agenda: repeal of DOMA and creation of "same-sex 'marriage'".

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 23, 2010 10:38 AM (NITzp)

205

Which one of these things is not like the other?

1) Individuals who are banned ...

(2) Individuals in D.C. and Chicago who are banned ...

(3) Individuals who want to keep...

(4) Individuals who are forced...

5) Individuals who want to create a new right...

Posted by: Warden at December 23, 2010 11:46 AM (HzhBE)

206 After the holiday break we'll be introducing a bill to fund a military program that instructs gay soldiers on the proper way to wash their junk.

Posted by: Lame U.S. Congress at December 23, 2010 11:48 AM (GwPRU)

207 Also Gabe ought to point out that he works as an appellate litigator, so he makes his bread and butter from judicial activism.

So, is his point here a purely principled argument? I'll let you decide . . . but the answer's, no.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 23, 2010 12:04 PM (mAm+G)

208 Lawyer thinks people should listen to lawyers, and that lawyers should get more work. I didn't see that one coming.

Posted by: DFCtomm at December 23, 2010 12:09 PM (6SJP+)

209 I don't think the term "political maturity" makes any sense or applies here but certainly tiny minorities trying to make continuous end runs around the public to force their ideology on everyone else is the wrong way to do it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 23, 2010 12:10 PM (61b7k)

210 209 208 There can be no such thing as homosexual civil rights any more so than a thief can have a right to steal. We can and must regulate un-natural, un-necessary and un-productive sexual behavior.

Posted by: Sidney Allen Johnson at December 23, 2010 02:13 PM (oxyok)

No we don't. But just because we don't need to regulate it doesn't mean we need to sanction it.

It is true that not every immoral thing need also be made illegal. But it is a difficult line to draw. Our culture has lost any moral compass outside of the law. We're very close to a state of: if it's legal, it's moral. We've seen it with contraception, abortion, porn, and now sodomy.

Critics of the Lawrence v. Texas decision saw immediately that without the sanction of the law against sodomy, then SSM was inevitable. If it's a choice between outlawing sodomy and SSM, then I have to go without outlawing sodomy, which was of course a felony at common law.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 23, 2010 12:30 PM (mAm+G)

211 Law war is ruining the country. Just stop it! Dick the butcher was right.

Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71Â–78

Posted by: Wintoon at December 23, 2010 01:52 PM (q8Jt/)

212 nicely said Mr. Malor you said that very nicely

Posted by: happyfeet at December 23, 2010 02:03 PM (uU2Rq)

213 also I didn't know about the french horns boy do I feel naive

Posted by: happyfeet at December 23, 2010 02:11 PM (uU2Rq)

214 I wouldn't accuse anyone involved in DADT repeal politically mature. The Democrats waited until the lame-duck session to take up the issue, where they knew they didn't face any potential political backlash. Plus, most of the country is more concerned about the Bush-era tax cuts and spending proposal to devote a ton of scrutiny to the "minor" details about DADT -- around 85% of those booted were due to admission by the solider (of course, not all of them were gay), the "study" they conducted found opposition of repeal by those at the tip end of the spear, the Marines, and they never directly asked servicemembers if they agreed with repeal. Not to mention three out of four service chiefs specifically advised against repeal. Of course those same service chiefs will now guarantee they will comply with Congress' decision of repeal, but they and their colleagues know it's not that simple. But the military, unlike Congress and the federal courts, are hidebound by their sense of duty.

Posted by: Steve at December 23, 2010 02:38 PM (3WDtn)

215

while some may prefer to see some decisions come legislatively, the court's having found DADT unconstitutional undoubtably influenced the congressional vote to repeal. it's obvious from the nasty bias against gay citizens expressed in the comments here that the remedies for the discrimination against a class of the citizenry must be sought in the courts rather than left up to the mob. the constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens, not just the ones who are popular.

Posted by: el polacko at December 23, 2010 03:08 PM (MD1d0)

216 Gabe.

Be more clear.

I'm not one to say TLDR but even I have my threshold.

I appreciate the wealth of knowledge you can muster to support your points but honestly, it's a fucking chore to wade through.

I get bored and suddenly realize that I'm not getting paid for this shit.

Posted by: Deety with her Candy Cane shiv at December 23, 2010 03:15 PM (Jb3+B)

217 WTF is wrong with you people attacking Gabe personally? He's on our side, if you hadn't noticed. He's wrong only because he sees the courts as protectors of individual rights. Personally attacking people on your own side is stupid. Dumbasses.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 23, 2010 04:28 PM (eJ9xV)

218 I used to feel that way JohnJ. I disagreed with gabe but did respect him. Then he made a comment about how can any of us claim to argue with his opinion in the post because he doesn't put his opinion in the post. He's just talking straight up news and not inserting any commentary. That just comes off to me as bullshit on his part and only done because he wants to claim to be above it all and knowing that his opinion on this stuff would be argued against because its not based on a belief in conservativism, but because he wants us to be forced by law to recognize the person he is with as his husband and they are married and it has just as much meaning as one performed in a church.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 05:08 PM (oVQFe)

219 Well, that's what law school does to you. Maybe I'm just so used to hearing that kind of language that I just don't notice it. Regardless, Gabe's trying to be objective, that's all. According to his starting point of courts as protectors of individual rights, he's arguably correct. This is what I believe he's thinking: "The Constitution prohibits unreasonable discrimination in legislation. Discrimination against gays is unreasonable. Ergo, the Constitution prohibits it." Now, either of his premises may be challenged on their own bases. Or it can be challenged on the basis that the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to decide what is or is not unreasonable discrimination (it's even arguable that if the Constitution does empower the judiciary this way, it shouldn't because judiciaries aren't good at this). Anyways, there are numerous ways to challenge Gabe's presumption other than personal attacks.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 23, 2010 07:33 PM (eJ9xV)

220

Regardless, Gabe's trying to be objective, that's all.

But that's bullshit here. Are you going to tell me that if Gabe knew the position he held was popular here that he wouldn't give some commentary on it? See there would be something to it if he always wrote in this "above it all" style but he doesn't. He only does it when he gets to talk about how awesome it is for lawyers to screw over people by being judges and fucking over the public or when issues that are the pet projects of gay rights groups. Hence it is bullshit. So in this case I have less of a problem with the positions he holds and instead in his style of writing like he's just an impartial observer. And his personality plays into that.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 07:52 PM (oVQFe)

221

Asics gel

Asics tiger

Posted by: asics shoes at December 23, 2010 10:02 PM (Uw8og)

222 The late Herb Caen of the San Francisco Chronicle (certainly no social con) had a great line about gays, especially apropos for SF: "It used to be the love that dare not speak its name. Now it won't shut up."

Posted by: Gary Rosen at December 23, 2010 11:27 PM (9CzKK)

223 Demand some "political maturity" from the Judicial Branch itself -- denying citizens standing as taxpayers to sue governmental authoritarians for unconstitutional policies that prohibit law enforcement.

Kick some "political maturity" judicial activism ass off the legislating from the bench.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 24, 2010 02:31 AM (H+LJc)

224 I say is this Gabe chap a bit limp-wristed himself, a tad light footed? Homosexuality saturates everything about buggers, including their thinking. It's one of the ways to explain their difference. "Difference" one day will be considered hate speech.

Posted by: Banjo at December 24, 2010 04:21 AM (nnZ5F)

225 Or there is a lot more gay going on in Africa than we know about...

Posted by: ef at December 23, 2010 01:09 PM (c7Pp2)

There is ignorance and superstition such as "sex" with a child virgin will cure you of AIDS. There's a lot of rape in Africa, and they don't like lube. All you need is a good laceration, the kind that usually comes from rough anal sex, but any old fluid / blood mingling will do.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 24, 2010 05:30 AM (mHQ7T)

226 #235 - Yech, too graphic, and not a visual that I wanted to imagine on Christmas Eve.

Posted by: Brian at December 24, 2010 09:28 AM (sYrWB)

227 232 The late Herb Caen of the San Francisco Chronicle (certainly no social con) had a great line about gays, especially apropos for SF: "It used to be the love that dare not speak its name. Now it won't shut up."

Actually, that quote has also been attributed to Midge Decter and Robertson Davies. The earliest reference I have seen is to a remark by director Mike Nichols in 1967.

And it's more true today than ever.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 24, 2010 10:14 AM (s3dMx)

228 Caen did attribute it to someone else who was gay (Caen was not) but I wondered if he did that to protect himself from accusations of "homophobia". Now probably even a gay person couldn't get away with it in SF. The city's saving grace used to be its sense of humor but that seems to have vanished since Caen passed away.

Posted by: Rex Ryan at December 24, 2010 06:39 PM (9CzKK)

229 thanks for that article personel alimi, memur alimi, isci alimi, is basvurusu

Posted by: iþ baþvurusu at March 06, 2011 01:26 PM (0ENkl)

230 want to go for something casual or dressy will depend entirely upon on you.

Posted by: puma shoes sale at June 29, 2011 07:27 AM (dfNd/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

240kb generated in CPU 0.0989, elapsed 0.3769 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2909 seconds, 358 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.