1 Yee-haw! Ridin' this bomb all the way to the ground!

2

Huh?

Oh and Bolton/Christie 2012.

3 MSM: It's all Bush's fault!!  And by Bush we of course mean the prez right before him, but we don't want to confuse Mr. and Mrs. Donkeydickvoter, now do we?!

4 controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee might help weed out a few liberal judicial nominees.

It never has before. But this time—!

5 yeah, cuz sharing common showers in field conditions with a bunch of guys looking at my dick is good for morale.

Hey, if they drop this, then co-ed showers are a go! 

Are you fucking kidding me!?

6 I'm sure all the married military spouses have no problem with their  husbands/wives in co-ed showers, right?  It's the SAME FUCKING THING

7 An old one that I picked up somewhere along the way....

All professions inevitably cycle through four stages. The first stage, for the sake of demonstration, is that it's poor and it thinks it's poor. It's not particularly lucrative or glamorous, but someone in the profession can keep body and soul together if they work really hard at it.

The second stage is where the profession is rich, but still thinks it's poor. The best example of this is George Bailey, the small town banker, in It's a Wonderful Life. Even though he thinks he's poor enough to contemplate suicide, he's actually respected by the town and has the ability to draw upon support he doesn't consider.

In the third stage, the profession is rich, and thinks it's rich. Power, wealth, adulation. All those hidden resources from the previous stage get tapped and maximized.

And in the fourth stage, the virtues of hard work from the first two stages have been completely squandered. The resources from the second stage that were tapped in the third are now tapped out. While the profession still thinks of itself as rich, it is now poor. It has sold its integrity, that took two phases to accumulate, in the time it took to move from one phase to another. Still pompous and puffed up, the public looks sideways and hurries by when they meet.

Seems to me that there are quite a few judges in stage 4, who no longer put forth a legal argument more sophisticated than "because I want it this way."

8 Okay, I'm just a stupid vet. My chain of command had 1 person that was a civilian in it. That was the POTUS. What Constitutional authority does the federal court system have over the day to day operations of the military? I seriously don't understand this.

9 Here's a question for the legal eagles. Why does any court have jurisdiction over military policy? Shouldn't it be under the UCMJ, or the Joint Cheif (or even the Commander-in-Chief)? Honestly, I'd like some education on this. Thanks!

10

I'd add that there are quite a few elected officials in cthulhu's stage 4, too.

The US Senate & House members were supposed to be citizen legislators who interrupted their real jobs to serve the people and then went back to their real jobs.  Now, the goal is stage 4 pomposity.

11 Having been a drill instructor, I can tell you that the lesbians are already in the military.  They make damn good drill instructors, but I can tell you for sure those young female recruits don't appreciate shower time.  They've said so.

12 Former Monkee Michael Nesmith was 29 years ahead of his time.

Marine Recruiting Video - from "Elephant Parts"

-

13 We totally support gays in the military and gay marriage. We also believe that the judiciary, as evidenced here, should be the strongest branch of government. I thought we were pretty clear on this.

14 DADT actually gives (gave?) singles some privacy - nobody could ask what you you do for kicks on off-duty, as long as you didn't tell them. Conversely they can do 'health and welfare' inspections on your quarters if married, and provide discipline if you kept a sloppy household.

Congrats, some members personal life relationships are now subject to further scrutiny, and if determined that it adversely affects readiness you either terminate that relationship or its Chapter 15 time.

15 So then women not allowed in infantry is unconstitutional right?

16 Re-reading the post, it seems as if DADT was a law passed by Congress. I always thought that it was simply imposed by Clinton as a "triangulation" move to appease conservative critics. Checks and Balances, perhaps?

17 Which means expect another helping of "they intentionally lost the case" like after the DOMA lawsuits earlier this summer. Well, yes, we should expect that people will point out the obvious.

18 1990's - Liberals force tolerance of the gay lifestyle in the military.
2000's - Liberals force acceptance of the gay lifestyle in the military.

Never give an inch.

19

Oh come on, we already know that the military is full of teh gheys and that they're all the best soldiers!  We also know that our warfighting capability is seriously hampered by not allowing the 20% of the population that is teh ghey the ability to serve. 

I mean, it's like a right to serve in the military and all that. 

20 You're Goddamn Right I Ordered The Code Fuschia
_{- A Few Good Men Redux}

21 Most of you will find yourselves on the wrong side of history... not that it matters. DADT will go away at some point... next year, next decade, sometime. Get over it. From: a damn good soldier that happens to be gay. And if you are a professional military officer/NCO/Soldier etc, you won't care, you'll just do your job and let me do mine.

22 Posted by: Jakke_113 at September 10, 2010 12:09 AM (kJgfY) What is your MOS?

23 Posted by: Jakke_113 at September 10, 2010 12:09 AM (kJgfY)

So then what was wrong with DADT?

24 O/T:  anyone else unable to load the ONT?

25 This is probably something that should be determined in-house, IMO. I don't really think I'd care myself, but I still have to graduate in Dec. and go to OCS, so I don't really have any experience yet.

26 BIG OT!! Austan Goolsbee will be named economic advisor tomorrow!!! Has to be a joke.

27 Here's my sea-lawyer take on it.  Homosexuality doesn't violate the UCMJ, but sodomy does.  DADT basically said that the chain of command wouldn't investigate violations of this one article as long as nobody rubbed their noses in it.

I've got to say, the unit cohesion argument is pretty suspicious to me.  We knew who the homosexuals were within a month of reporting on board.  Never really bothered us, then again we were significantly undermanned and couldn't really afford to reject a body for trivial reasons.

I'm also confused about the Judge's ruling.  It said in the article DADT violated the 1st amendment, but Lawrence v Texas referenced the 14th.  Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer.

28 25 O/T:  anyone else unable to load the ONT?

It's loading fine for me. There has been a slight delay upon reload though.

29 Gringo,

They couldn't dig up Gottfreid Feder, eh?

Fun question, who said this?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of todayÂ’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

30 I suspect #23 will not get an answer from #22.

31 It's not an absolute bar (that would require taking the White House back), but controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee might help weed out a few liberal judicial nominees.

Do you mean like in 1999 when we had 55 republican Senators and Clinton appointed this judge?

32 Then we need 4 showers:  men, women, lesbians, & gay men. 

Or... 1 shower, and fuck it.

33 And the first idiot that says that gay men will be welcomed into the Marines isn't and has never been a Marine.

34 its times like this that i'm glad i have my blue card

35 I'm also confused about the Judge's ruling.  It said in the article DADT violated the 1st amendment, but Lawrence v Texas referenced the 14th.  Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer.

This was a First Amendment and a Fourteenth Amendment case, both.

36 tangonine:  If it's really that big of a deal I would recommend 2 showers, separated by who you would like to have sex with.

37

U.S. District Court Judge VAGINA A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness,

Even her name indicates that she is a LIBTARD KUNT.

Where did she become an EXPERT on Military Readiness, and who elected her to make that determination.

 

Classic LIBTARD ACTIVIST.   

38 And don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with someone being gay.  Just stick to Fashion Week, and we'll stick to killing people.

39 i see many marines busted for fighting already

40 37 tangonine:  If it's really that big of a deal I would recommend 2 showers, separated by who you would like to have sex with.

Posted by: Jeff Gauch at September 10, 2010 12:32 AM (CO/RA)

How about a shower that your deployed spouse has to share with someone who wants to have sex with him/her? Idiot.

41 Gabe, since you are monitoring this thread, can you answer the question what Constitutional authority a federal judge has over military policy?

42 Put the pillow biters in charge of finding and  deactivating mines.

43

39  And don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with someone being gay.  Just stick to Fashion Week, and we'll stick to killing people.

i guess the marine bulldog will be changed to the chichuachua wearing those little booties

44 Well kiss my hairy ass!

45 22 Most of you will find yourselves on the wrong side of history... not that it matters. DADT will go away at some point... next year, next decade, sometime. Get over it.

From: a damn good soldier that happens to be gay.

And if you are a professional military officer/NCO/Soldier etc, you won't care, you'll just do your job and let me do mine.


(1) Funny, that's the argument the communists and their fellow travelers always made: that we were on the wrong side of history.  Wonder how that turned out.

(2) I don't recall myself or any of my comrades-in-arms referring to ourselves as "damn good soldiers."

(3) No professional soldier thinks of the military as a "job."  It's a life.  It's all encompassing.  This idea that everyone in the military goes home after work to houses in the suburbs and so we shouldn't care what they do in their off hours is just a liberal civilian fantasy.

46 make that chihuahua

47 Heres my take . We don't like gays in the military,out of the mlitary or anywhere else. So fuck you queers go blow yourself in San Fran queero!

48

46  (3) No professional soldier thinks of the military as a "job."  It's a life.  It's all encompassing.  This idea that everyone in the military goes home after work to houses in the suburbs and so we shouldn't care what they do in their off hours is just a liberal civilian fantasy.

amen, preach that shit brother

i have an idea, lets find a muslim soldier who says that this is against the koran.........

49 Just imagine, for a moment, your deployed wife having to shower with a squad of Marines.

OR

Image your deployed husband having to shower with a pile of women.

Warm fuzzy yet?  Now you're not just worried about them getting shot, you're worried about them NEEDING a shot.

50 "How about a shower that your deployed spouse has to share with someone who wants to have sex with him/her? Idiot.

Posted by: tangonine at September 10, 2010 12:35 AM (C8Pcc)

Seriously?  There are women at home fretting, not because their husband is in mortal danger from being shot and/or kidnapped and beheaded, but fretting because they may have to take a shower with a gay man that probably could care less about his hairy ass?

51

Again, under what AUTHORITY did VAGINA PHILLIPS make MILITARY POLICY and decide FORMER POLICY didn't work.

Harry Reid said THE WAR IS LOST.  And his ugly ass was ELECTED.

Vajayjay Phillips like ALL.  I repeat ALL LIBTARDS abused her powers and made MILITARY POLICY by FIAT.

Guess who is picking FEDERAL JUDGES.

Guess who BLOCKED G.W.Bush's picks.

Why would ANYONE give an inch to a LIBTARD.

Well, I'm sure there are numerous "Libtard inchers"

52 48 Heres my take . We don't like gays in the military,out of the mlitary or anywhere else. So fuck you queers go blow yourself in San Fran queero!

Posted by: sonnyspats at September 10, 2010 12:39 AM (2DxKT)

No.  I have no problem with someone wanting to be with someone of the same sex.  The military, however, is a unique social environment.  One where that behavior negatively impacts a unit.  I've seen it.

I was in a unit with a lot of lesbians.  They segregated themselves from the men and the men rejected them as well.  It was detrimental to morale and negatively affected the unit.

53 41 <blockquote> How about a shower that your deployed spouse has to share with someone who wants to have sex with him/her? Idiot.</blockquote>


Sorry, didn't know I was talking to a Jarhead.  I'll try and use smaller words.

1) It was facetious.

2) I'm not married.

3) If I were I wouldn't be worried about who wanted to have sex with <i>her</i>, I'd be worried about who she wanted to have sex with.

4) Get over yourself, not every gay guy wants to jump your bones.  I'd be willing to bet you've already shared a shower with a gay guy and you're still pure as the driven slush.

54

Better yet. Imagine a FEDERAL JUDGE deciding who your wife could or could not take a shower with based on HER OPINION.

 

55 "you're still pure as the driven slush."

Or, rejected and dejected and is quite bitter, apparently. 

56

57  its why i love the navy

our chicks are brrrrrrrrrrr but our hot ones are fucking smoking

57 I guess a guy married to another dude has to be allowed in the military.

58 Gabe, since you are monitoring this thread, can you answer the question what Constitutional authority a federal judge has over military policy?

All Acts of Congress are subject to judicial challenge, at least since Marbury v. Madison. DADT, a Congressional Act, is no different.

Now, there have been some blanket exceptions -- for example, the Ninth Circuit just upheld a strong version of the "state secrets doctrine" to prevent the lower courts from reviewing actions of the CIA or military performing extraordinary renditions. Courts also apply a blanket exception to military issues that aren't acts of Congress (for example, military orders are not subject to judicial review; when your commanding officer orders you to do something, you do it).

DADT was a law passed by Congress, though, so it is subject to judicial challenge.

Now, there has also been a general deference to Congress and the Executive Branch when it comes to military policy. The idea being that the Constitution provides that Congress and the Executive have greater control over the military than they do civilians. But that has never meant that Acts of Congress that set military policy is exempted from judicial review, as you seem to imply should be the case.

For example, President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus for military combatants was challenged successfully in the courts. So was Congress' in 2006 for Gitmo detainees, just to name two examples off the top of my head. There have been others.

That general deference means that Acts impacting the military are rarely subjected to the same scrutiny that congressional Acts affecting civilians would be. The judge here applied that military deference, but--as I said--that doesn't mean DADT is exempt from judicial review. It only means that the government doesn't have to work as hard to justify a law.

Unfortunately (?), here the government didn't provide much at all to justify DADT. According to the government in this case, no proof that DADT would negatively impact unit cohesion and morale is required. It is enough, it argued, that Congress says unit cohesion and morale would be negatively impacted.

The judge disagreed. Just because Congress says something is true does not make that the case, even in the military context. The government compounded its error by refusing even to make a factual argument in the alternative. Thus, all of the plaintiffs' evidence that DADT harmed the military went uncontested.

59 55 41 <blockquote> How about a shower that your deployed spouse has to share with someone who wants to have sex with him/her? Idiot.</blockquote>


Sorry, didn't know I was talking to a Jarhead.  I'll try and use smaller words.

1) It was facetious.

2) I'm not married.

3) If I were I wouldn't be worried about who wanted to have sex with <i>her</i>, I'd be worried about who she wanted to have sex with.

4) Get over yourself, not every gay guy wants to jump your bones.  I'd be willing to bet you've already shared a shower with a gay guy and you're still pure as the driven slush.

Posted by: Jeff Gauch at September 10, 2010 12:44 AM (CO/RA)

I dunno.  I'm pretty sexah.  In all my years in the military, I'm sure you're right and it's almost certain that one of those guys in the barracks showers was gay.  However, the thought of my wife showering with 20 lesbians would make her, not my, skin crawl. 

And you're definitely gay, because only a gay guy would say "get over yourself"

60

if this is the case, then they should allow all members of the military an immediate honorable discharge if they want it

lets see how many people would take it, that would should the effect on morale

61 59

57  its why i love the navy

our chicks are brrrrrrrrrrr but our hot ones are fucking smoking

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 10, 2010 12:48 AM (gg4j2)

Very true.  Navy women are either screaming hot or... screaming ugly.

62

Moral of the story.  If a FEDERAL JUDGE believes that PINK UNICORNS are more useful than ARMORED HUMVEES, she can decide Military policy???

What expertise or legal principle did this moron hang her hat on??

Nothing.  Her LIBTARD OPINION.

 

63

i'm waiting for the gays to sue to get into the islam mosques

that would be interesting

64  Gabe, since you are monitoring this thread, can you answer the question what Constitutional authority a federal judge has over military policy?

I wandered kinda far afield of your question. But let me put it like this. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." It does NOT say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except for military policy." Right?

That's why this federal judge has authority over DADT, a Congressional act that sets military policy.

65

BERKELEY 82.

Clinton nominee.

Elections matter folks.

 

66 I don't think the Taliban is going to be happy with this ruling, well most of them.

67

This ruling could cause RADICAL ISLAMISTS to attack us.

Get Patraeus, Opie the Kenyan Dimwit and George Snuffaluffagus from ABC VIEWS on the line.

If we go along with this OUR SOLDIERS could be attacked!!!!

 

68 Thank you for your thoughtful answer Gabe. I understand the idea of judicial review as per acts of Congress in the argument you put forward. So, if this ruling strikes down the DADT law passed by Congress, does it also strike down Clinton's Executive Order?

69 And as a gee whiz... if you've never served in an infantry unit, or hell, even on a  close-knit aircrew:  we tend to be a bit..how should I say it: fucking abrasive.
If you can't handle being called any of a variety of racial epithets laced with creative use of profanity (including homosexual slurs) on a minute-by-minute basis, stay the fuck out.

Only in the military can a white man turn to the black guy next to him in the foxhole and call him a F*gg*t N****r! and have him grin and turn and reply that all you F*gg*t Crackers are stupid! and know that when he says that it's the same as him acknowledging that you're his brother.

The environment is unique.

70 "And you're definitely gay, because only a gay guy would say 'get over yourself'"


After a, ahem, thorough review of my porn collection I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment.   It's definitely on the low end of the Sausage Index.

And I'm glad to see the USMC is so dedicated to ensuring everyone's comfort, because it seems to me that you're saying you can't accomplish the mission unless everyone's hand has been held.

71 What expertise or legal principle did this moron hang her hat on??
Nothing.  Her LIBTARD OPINION.
I understand you're upset, gus, but your objection is ridiculous.

There was a whole trial here where the parties had an opportunity to bring evidence. Y'know, like every damned trial ever. The job of the parties is to bring the "expertise" and persuade the judge. Judges don't just rule in a vacuum. They've got to decide based on the evidence that the parties bring.

The government here indisputably failed to bring evidence. In fact, that was their whole trial strategy. (Actually, if you go read the closing arguments transcript, the government used their time to close to get into a back-and-forth dispute with the judge over something she'd ruled on months earlier. Not a good move.)

72 Well, you had me until the Freedom of Speech response later on Gabe. The military is very, VERY restricted when it comes to Freedom of Speech and many other things that civilians would consider rights. Every SM knows that they sign away a shitton of rights when they join. If the 1st Amendment argument is applied across the board to all military policies, then the military will be degraded to the point of 3rd world militaries at best. Good order and discipline trumps the rights of the volunteer military, and we know that going in.

73 73 "And you're definitely gay, because only a gay guy would say 'get over yourself'"


After a, ahem, thorough review of my porn collection I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment.   It's definitely on the low end of the Sausage Index.

And I'm glad to see the USMC is so dedicated to ensuring everyone's comfort, because it seems to me that you're saying you can't accomplish the mission unless everyone's hand has been held.

Posted by: Jeff Gauch at September 10, 2010 01:01 AM (CO/RA)

No, the mission can only be accomplished when everyone's hand isn't on everyone else's dick.  And I'm sorry you have a porn "collection"

74 Wow, I thought that if DADT was not legal, then it would be ILLEGAL to be in the military if you were GAY. Isn't that the situation before DADT? This seems like a giant step backwards for the GAY community ... not being able to serve. What am I missing? Will we be seeing a mass exodus from service from Gays that now can be asked?

75 A squad leader needs to be worried about whether his men have clear fields of fire and deep enough fighting positions.  He doesn't need to make an extra round just to make sure his troops aren't making them into fucking positions.

76 So, if this ruling strikes down the DADT law passed by Congress, does it also strike down Clinton's Executive Order?

It's my understanding that Clinton's EO only said recruits could not be asked about their sexual orientation. That's probably unaffected. (Assuming it's still in force. Is it?)

77 The government here indisputably failed to bring evidence...

I've got to wonder based upon the current occupant of the WH if this wasn't on purpose.

78

timmy, TIMMY!!!!!!

put your damn helmet on, marine

the taliban is zeroing in on your pink hair again!!

79 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 10, 2010 01:12 AM (1TvCg) Not sure, I've been out for 5 years.

80  Well, you had me until the Freedom of Speech response later on Gabe.

The military is very, VERY restricted when it comes to Freedom of Speech and many other things that civilians would consider rights.

Sure, and that's why the courts generally are very deferential to government explanations of what is required for the military to operate. The difference here is that the government didn't provide an explanation of why DADT is required for the military. It said Congress' word should be enough and that should be the end of the discussion.

81 79 So, if this ruling strikes down the DADT law passed by Congress, does it also strike down Clinton's Executive Order?

It's my understanding that Clinton's EO only said recruits could not be asked about their sexual orientation. That's probably unaffected. (Assuming it's still in force. Is it?)

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 10, 2010 01:12 AM (1TvCg)

That is correct.

82 Haven't had much to say tonight.  Hawt or not I never have had much ability for remembering the names of actresses. I'm not sure what that says about me but I think I am so distracted by their loveliness my mind is numbed.  I am as much  for smokin bods as the next guy but what just eats me up is a gal with beautiful eyes.  Pale pale blue or green seem to be my favorites.  The ladies that have them know their power.  I would rate them right up there with the bod. 

83 85 Haven't had much to say tonight.  Hawt or not I never have had much ability for remembering the names of actresses. I'm not sure what that says about me but I think I am so distracted by their loveliness my mind is numbed.  I am as much  for smokin bods as the next guy but what just eats me up is a gal with beautiful eyes.  Pale pale blue or green seem to be my favorites.  The ladies that have them know their power.  I would rate them right up there with the bod. 

Posted by: Ohio Dan at September 10, 2010 01:17 AM (rurh0)

LOL wtf Dan?

Having said "wtf" I'll agree that it's the black haired beauties with the grey eyes that do it.

But... wtf?

84 The government here indisputably failed to bring evidence. In fact, that was their whole trial strategy.

Gabe -

Why exactly would a President who wants to destroy America from the inside and who has appointed like minded people into positions of power at the DOJ want to make a strong argument for DADT?

It is a win-win for Obama - no political capital lost for allowing a Clinonista to make the decision; and, loss of morale in the President's most hated and most snubbed constituency - the US Armed Forces.

85 Oops, posted that on the wrong thread.  After reading it it sounded a little gay so maybe it should have gone on the DADT thread.

86 Is there not enough criminal or other legal  matters that need judging, or is it these leftarded judges are not doing the job they were appointed to do? I saw start withdrawing their appointments and put them in the unemployment line and off the taxpayer dole.

Keep your freaking slimy leftarded hands off the last entity of government that still WORKS.. 

87  LOL wtf Dan?

I think Dan accidentally wandered in from the ONT.

88 We all have our WTF moments.

89 Is there not enough criminal or other legal  matters that need judging, or is it these leftarded judges are not doing the job they were appointed to do?

beanervt, the judges don't get to pick their cases. Plaintiffs bring them to court.

90 Honestly, I'd go for an all Lesbian branch of the armed forces.  Those women are brutal to the core and would kill everything in their path.

Gay guys?  not so much.

91 90  LOL wtf Dan?

I think Dan accidentally wandered in from the ONT.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 10, 2010 01:20 AM (1TvCg)

91 We all have our WTF moments.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at September 10, 2010 01:21 AM (rurh0)

It's all good, you made a good point, and I agree!

92 Maybe an all lesbian seal team.  The mere thought of it makes me want to pull the  covers over my head.

93 Unleash them once a month....

94 Since I am on this thread I may as well weigh in.  In the Corps we shared pup tents, had communal showers and 50 to a barracks.  Nobody better be sporting wood in that environment.

95 Dan, share with the crowd what would happen to said "wood-sporting" Marine if that unfortunate incident were to occur.

96 As a side-bar

Post DADT - I went through MEPS in 1994. They put two to a double bed hotel room for a couple of days. Not a gang shower, just a typical hotel sleeping room with a separate bath.

My 'room-mate' was a young lady who thought something was wrong... I had actually slept in the same room with women my age who I was not related to or involved with many times in the past. She, apparently, had not and asked me if it was right, said they assigned the rooms, I am OK.

She complained and got another room.

Had nothing to do with DADT, but the policy then was you do not bunk in the same room as the opposite sex even if there are private bathing facilities. (Both of had first names the staff could not grok)

Long made short - it was that one did not bunk or bath with the 'opposite naturally attractive sex' - does this ruling suggest that every member of the military be entitled to private quarters?

Either case, it would be great to shower every day with a bunch of physically fit woman, even if they have no interest now in my forty year+ flabby gut... conversely, it would be great to be entitled to private sleeping and bathing space in Shiitecanistan, even during a fire fight.

What? You actually think we wait a week(s) to to sleep and wash our asses during a recon???

97 Is it law or is it policy? I have heard it called both and defined as both.  And why are all the examples cited Arabic interpreters?

98 Exactly, PETN.

In the field, things are bad enough without having to wonder if the guy in the bunk next to you is going to make a pass at you.  I'd definitely have my M9 under the pillow.

99

If said wood sporter approached one, a quick bunch in the face followed by a couple kicks on the ground would occur.  No one would go whining to the CO.  Word would get around and the guy would quietly be asked to leave the service a little early. 

If some unlucky SOB would be asleep in the rack having a wet dream there would be no end to the ribbing he would take.

100 PETN Sandwich -

maybe you snored ...

{alphanumeric smiley}

101 "the judges don't get to pick their cases. Plaintiffs bring them to court"

Yes Gabe I do realize that and really more pissed with the whole idea of political tinkering with the military. Having gone through the results of early lefty tinkers, macnamara and his whiz kids, I say only the military not judges should be deciding policy. The military is not a place to be playing PC games.

102 98 Dan, share with the crowd what would happen to said "wood-sporting" Marine if that unfortunate incident were to occur.

My guy who was a USMC field MP just told me about a guy who was tortured by dudes in his own unit when he "came out."
In a world with no privacy if you just dont say anything then everyones cool, but once its out... the plausible deniability is gone. These guys are trained to be fighters and well... sometimes bad things happen. Alot of em dont need GOOD reasons to fight. They just like fightin. we all know people we think MIGHT be gay. But as long as its not proven well... let it alone.
in the USMC:
THERE IS NO PRIVACY. YOU CAN NOT GO HOME. YOU CANT PICK YOUR ROOMATE.
EVERYONE IS AGRESSIVE. LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES.
this is a recipe for bad jazz. That said i knew a couple dude too manly for girls and just ran into a lesbian MP we knew from Miramar about two hours away from base eatin dinner with her Girlfriend. Amusingly a few years ago she called me a whore...for just walkin thru the barracks with my arms full of bags from In N Out Burger. I just said "jealous much?" and kept walkin. I was takin dinner to my guy.

103 And why are all the examples cited Arabic interpreters?

They're not. In this case, the witnesses included  one Air Force major who had something to do with satellite communications, one Navy seaman dog handler, one Naval officer, one Army translator, and one Air Force tech/loadmaster.

The Arabic interpreter thing comes up so often because it's a fairly obvious question: why are we discharging Arabic interpreters when there's a shortage of them and we're at war with Arabic-speaking people?

104 ok but what i am hearing from my guy is you dont generally get punted for violating DADT usually its a pretext to get rid of you because you are a troublemaker in other ways. then its a covent way to rid the corps of a useless piece of trouble. If you are stellar and useful they dont care if you arent obnoxious. everyone knows whose probably gay.  but if its not up for discussion, then nobody can force you out.

once you become a troublemaker all bets are off.

105 Posted by: gucci bags at September 10, 2010 01:45 AM (2qjni)

That's creepy when the spambot quotes somebody like that.

106 So this US District Court Judge character comes out of thin air, in the middle of a goddamn courtroom... while her butch buddies are flying around on wires cutting everybody to shreds... and she just stands there waiting for me to present my evidence... with LIGHT COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH!?!?

107 Reading through the pro-DADT comments from veterans I'm beginning to see a common thread:  Leadership failure.  For whatever reason people seem to think that the unit leadership will fail to train people, gay and straight, in what is necessary for the unit to work together and accomplish the mission.

I know I've given the "You don't have to like each other, but you do have to work together" speech plenty of times, including to myself.  Is there something about handling guns that causes all reason and logic to drain away?  That can't be it since I don't feel any dumber after a day of shooting.

108 I've got to say, the unit cohesion argument is pretty suspicious to me.  We knew who the homosexuals were within a month of reporting on board.  Never really bothered us, then again we were significantly undermanned and couldn't really afford to reject a body for trivial reasons.

Posted by: Jeff Gauch at September 10, 2010 12:21 AM (CO/RA)

You have to stop seeing this through a still camera and see it through a movie.  The problem isn't the gay soldiers and their partners, it's the gay soldiers and their lawyers.

Without DADT, homosexuals become a protected class.  Every damned thing the military does will now have a disparate impact on homosexuals and the JAG corps will be tied up in courts martial.  At the moment, gay soldiers cannot claim they are being discriminated against because to do so would be to "tell."

You can't simply say, "well, we have gay soldiers now and everybody knows it and everything's OK.  It's OK because of the system that is in place now.  If the system changes, then there will be different circumstances.

109 When I enlisted, homosexuality in the military was illegal; as years went by it became optional; I'm retiring before it becomes mandatory.

110

The judge disagreed. Just because Congress says something is true does not make that the case, even in the military context. The government compounded its error by refusing even to make a factual argument in the alternative.

Bullshit, Gabe.  This was an activist judge who looked to rule this way.  As incompentent as the Holder justice department is, you cannot place the blame anywhere but the plutocrat who made this decision.

It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario.  The judge would have done gymnastics just to get the decision he wanted.  If they would have made the factual argument, he would have found something else.  The whole thing was a figleaf.

111 Retiring is a good plan. The Army in peace time is bad enough.

112 "Without DADT, homosexuals become a protected class."

Now I don't see how that follows.  Not saying it won't happen, but it's illogical.

I have a huge problem with the idea of "protected class" and support all efforts to eradicate it.  But I don't think the few assholes who want to bring lawyers into everything should ruin things for people who want to serve without lying about their personal lives.

113 Sorry I deleted that spam before I realized it had become a topic of conversation. You guys get the gist anyhow.  It's amazing/horrifying how much the spam has "improved" in the years I been blogging.

114

Now I don't see how that follows.  Not saying it won't happen, but it's illogical.

Of course it follows.  It happens with everything else.  It isn't hard to understand.

I have a huge problem with the idea of "protected class" and support all efforts to eradicate it. 

And how's that worked out for you?

But I don't think the few assholes who want to bring lawyers into everything should ruin things

They already do. Do you live in this country?

115 Mmmm. Spam.

116 I have a huge problem with the idea of "protected class" and support all efforts to eradicate it.

The only unprotected class left in this country are straight white Christian males.

117  At the moment, gay soldiers cannot claim they are being discriminated against because to do so would be to "tell."

BTW, this is one of the reasons the judge struck DADT down: discrimination and abuse of gays was going unchecked because the victims were afraid to come forward.

118 They should build gay units. You could call them the pink berets. They could take care of POWS and find mines and spring ambushes.

119 They should build gay units. You could call them the pink berets. They could take care of POWS and find mines and spring ambushes.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 10, 2010 02:20 AM (9cflz)

Cruel, funny but cruel.

120

BTW, this is one of the reasons the judge struck DADT down: discrimination and abuse of gays was going unchecked because the victims were afraid to come forward.

Then I suggest that the judge try to get the law overturned by casting a vote this November.

121 Oh, and before I go to bed...I've been punching the government for failing to make an alternative factual argument. But, it occurs to me that it may have decided it couldn't.

There are no reputable studies that open gay service is detrimental to national security, unit cohesion, or morale. So expert testimony would have been difficult to procure.

They could have brought in current or former armed forces members (lay witnesses) to testify about their experiences with gays who were outed in their experience, but they'd have to dig up folks whose experiences with gays in service were bad and where they'd be willing to testify about it under oath. That's kinduva tough bill to fill.

122 The only unprotected class left in this country are straight white Christian males.

Maybe we can make them a protected class since they're the only unprotected class?

123 It's like the judiciary has decided to do whatever it wants to enact the Gay/Happy Agenda, the people be damned and now our military be damned as well. I'm sure this judge is well qualified to determine what is "deleterious" to military readiness based on her extensive experience in combat. Those of us not in the military need to stand up and fight this out of control social experiment. We owe it to those defending our country and our freedoms.

124 Reparations for the straight white Christian males.

125 Y'know, if there's one bit of judicial activism that I'm warming to, it's the concept that someone entering the courtroom with the intent of "throwing the game" despite their role should be held in contempt.

Of course, judicial "contempt" and standard English usage "contempt" are different animals.....'cause standard English contempt is slopping over onto anyone with a government paycheck.

126 #125 you raise a good point. Imagine testifying under oath about harassment by homosexuals while your own government is trying to push them on you. Then next month you find out your CO is homosexual and you can't do anything about it. Who is going to risk that to testify openly? These guys should be treated like whistle-blowers (no pun intended dammit, lol). Congress critters should be demanded that protection.

127

There are no reputable studies that open gay service is detrimental to national security, unit cohesion, or morale. So expert testimony would have been difficult to procure.

Couldn't have asked anyone in the military, huh?  I guess every fucking body was busy that day.  The Commandant couldn't drop in?  Or he's not expert enough for you.  Guy only runs an organization of 200,000+ highly trained war machines on 6 different continents.  Piece of fucking cake, because GABRIEL MOTHERFUCKING MALOR - BLOGGER MOTHERFUCKING EXTRAODINAIRE - SEZ SO.

Gabe, since you're so fucking hard up for this, I better see your ass at MEPS when the ban goes down.

128 And the first idiot that says that gay men will be welcomed into the Marines isn't and has never been a Marine.

You mean like the Marine of the Year who was gay? (92 or 93 and it may have happened again after that)

I have mentioned before that I used to run STD clinics for the Navy.  I can tell you the idea that somehow the Marines are without Homosexuals is utter and complete BS.  Not only were they turning up in my contact interviews after being treated we were being contacted by local public health departments who had Marines named as a partner in homosexual contacts. 

129 I don't see DADT as a ban, gays are in the military, they are just advised to keep the butt sex and dick sucking aspect of things in their personal life.

130 Navy seaman dog handler

THREADWINNER

131 Civilians should stay out of this.

132

135 Civilians should stay out of this.

No, not really.  The CinC is civilian and so is Congress.

Judges should, however.

To me, that isn't the issue.  The issue is that the legal profession -- and tenfold so the judiciary -- have become worse than the French aristocracy pre-revolution.

133 136, What civilians should do is let the military deal with this and then later add laws to make the military's choices stick. Congress and the POTUS, and as you say, the Judiciary need to learn that having power sometimes requires not using it.

134
"First, they said, it violates their guarantee of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. The second restriction, the plaintiffs said, involves the free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Although those rights are diminished in the military, the judge wrote, the restrictions in the act still fail the constitutional test of being “reasonably necessary” to protect “a substantial government interest.”NYT

I thought you lost all "rights" when you signed on the dotted line? Once your in your owned by the service until your contract is done.

135

What civilians should do is let the military deal with this and then later add laws to make the military's choices stick.

In that sense, yes, civilians should defer to military expertise.

136 "No, not really.  The CinC is civilian and so is Congress."

CnC's use to be former military now look what we got...overly intelligent idiots who can barely say military..

137

I thought you lost all "rights" when you signed on the dotted line? Once your in your owned by the service until your contract is done.

Oh, the whole ruling is crap.  Unless you think that a judge can declare a law unconstitutional on a whim because the prosecution isn't properly deferential.

138 Ginza buying area is pictured in middle Tokyo,Jordan retro home to some with one of the most expensive commercial genuine estate even although in the country. Japan's financial bape shoes system expanded additional than in the beginning believed even although in the next quarter, federal government information showed Friday, as domestic firms ramped up money expenditure.Soccer jerseys on 17878996852004

139

overly intelligent idiots who can barely say military..

They are not intelligent.  They went to *law*school*.  This is where you go when *math* is too *hard* for you.

The biggest mistake we ever made was having a whole bunch of people getting all googly-eyed at a Harvard Law graduate.

140 How does a federal court get juisdiction on something like this?  And isn't there a separation of powers issue?

141

oops

142

116 "Without DADT, homosexuals become a protected class."

Now I don't see how that follows.  Not saying it won't happen, but it's illogical. -- Illogical, yes.  But it's happened with all the other now-protected classes. 

I don't think the few assholes who want to bring lawyers into everything should ruin things for people who want to serve  . . .  --  Agreed.  But the assholes with lawyers see it the other way. 

121 - BTW, this is one of the reasons the judge struck DADT down: discrimination and abuse of gays was going unchecked because the victims were afraid to come forward. --  I haven't seen any significant examples of this, but I've only been in uniform for 25 years and might have missed something. 

Now that this is in the court system, the irreversible process has begun.  The government is no longer interested in making the military effective at our core function - they want to use us for social engineering.  They don't need me to do that.  I'm dropping my retirement papers as soon as I get home. 

143 Just saw #61.  Good answer.  I thought DADT was an exective order or just a military policy.

144 The way I look at this, there are things that are nice and things that are enforceable. It's quite parallel to the difference between charity and taxpayer-supported relief. Government is funded using its coercive police power and has a monopoly on the use of force -- it should never be involved in mere personal preference or taste.

In the realm of prop 8, and the whole gay marriage debacle, I'm on the side of building lasting relationships based on love. Groovy. Someone says they're in love, great. They say they want to celebrate their lasting commitment, great. They say they want a partnership, great. They say they want a marriage, well......that's been around for a while and there's likely stuff in there that is "right" and stuff that was "convenient" back in the 1870's. My bias is towards allowing "marriage" under the law, but not until it's been cleaned up a bit... They say some dumbass judge has just declared that A=B without understanding "A", "B", or "=" -- no, no, no, no, a thousand times no!

The kerfluffle over DADT is similar, but with additional twists. First and foremost, people are shooting at our troops -- does DADT make it into the "immediate" category? Second, how does this play with the mission in lands where American policy is being effected?  It's all well and good to shape American perception; it's all well and good to support American values -- but if the mission is compromised because of foreign perception, what have we gained? Personally, I'd feel much better if the judge were a veteran.

145 "The biggest mistake we ever made was having a whole bunch of people getting all googly-eyed at a Harvard Law graduate."

The mistake was the brain dead media pushing the idea that supposed intelligence is what the country needed instead of actual experience. Leftist media and leftist government is about as bad as it gets for a once free nation.

146 "Personally, I'd feel much better if the judge were a veteran"

And the CnC as well.

147 U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness..

And who made this scrunt an expert on military readiness?

Yest another half-assed defense of a law that the current asshole 'n chief doesn't support for one reason or another. This is something I am really getting sick of.

They know that repeal of this law is not popular. In fact I would say that most people would like to see it go back to where it was pre-Clinton.  So instead of presenting evidence they let the court to their dirty work for them.

And BTW, BOTH parties do this. The Bush guys did it with that stupid CO2 case.

Which is another huge question. Why are things like this going into court to be settled anyway? Judges are not qualified to settle the truth in either one of these areas.

148 "Why are things like this going into court to be settled anyway"

Too many lawyers without jobs or government positions. We need to start limiting the number as it's become a danger to our freedom and sanity.

149

Virginia A. Phillips.  UC Riverside 1979, JD Berkely, 1982.  Nominated by Clinton Jan. 26, 1999, confirmed, November 10, 1999.  Senate Majority Leader: Trent Lott. Judiciary Chair: Orin Hatch.  Number of GOP senators: 55

Tell me again why we need to settle for 3 horned RINOs just so the GOP can have a majority?  

Never entrust power to anyone not willing to surrender it. 

 

150

I've got nothing against gays and nothing against women. But I'm against allowing gays in the military for the same reason I'm against women in combat units. It does affect unit cohesion and morale.

My military experience is Marine Infantry, it was all guys all the time, so I can't speak from experience there. But I worked in Iraq as an advisor to the Iraqi police and was regulary around both Infantry and Military Police units. The Infantry didn't seem to have issues apart from those you will always get when you have a bunch of testosterone laden males who haven't seen their wives and girlfriends in months. The  coed MP units, on the other hand, always seemed to be dealing with drama caused by sexual relationships between the unit members.

Also, there is the consideration that a warrior has to be able to keep on fighting when the guy next to him/her gets their brains blown out. . Much harder to do when it's someone you are in a "special" relationship with. That affects the combat cabability of the unit.

The Military isn't a social experiment.

151 It said Congress' word should be enough and that should be the end of the discussion.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 10, 2010 01:15 AM (1TvCg)

Hey, that worked for Obamacare

152 Yeah! put us back in charge of Judiciary, We'll protect you wingnuts from liberal judges--now ain't that right fellas?

153 The law is an ass-packer.

154 Only in the military can a white man turn to the black guy next to him in the foxhole and call him a F*gg*t N****r! and have him grin and turn and reply that all you F*gg*t Crackers are stupid! and know that when he says that it's the same as him acknowledging that you're his brother.

The environment is unique.

Posted by: tangonine at September 10, 2010 01:00 AM (C8Pcc)

I never heard anything like that at all.  Never even close.

155 "wending", not "winding"

156 OT: The attention whore has been bamboozled...hoodwinked even....

AP: Fla. pastor, imam at odds over Quran-burning deal

The Rev. Terry Jones said Thursday he would call off the planned burning of Qurans based on a deal negotiated with the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida that the location of a mosque planned near ground zero in New York would be changed.

But Imam Muhammad Musri said he was clear on Thursday when he told Jones that he could only set up a meeting with planners of the New York City mosque, whose leader said he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri. Jones responded by opening the door, if only a crack, that he would go forward with his plan on Saturday.

"We are just really shocked," Jones said of Musri. "He clearly, clearly lied to us."

http://tinyurl.com/36r23cp

157 It sounds like the administration wanted to use the courts to do the repeal so it wouldn't have to enter a messy political debate.

Obama, you asshole: if you want to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" man up and push for it and do it the right way.  Don't go through the courts.

158 If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were unconstitutional, then "victimized" members of the military could sue the government institutions, everyone involved.

159 "We are just really shocked," Jones said of Musri. "He clearly, clearly lied to us."

Shocked. pphhh

160 Has this been cleared with the Islamic street yet?

After all, they do seem to have a veto power over activities in the US.

161 So, give the US Government 30d to file an appeal. If they don't - then immediately start convening court martials. Obama will have to act before election day, either go for a stay or issue an interim policy -- I am sure he doesn't want to do the latter.

162 For my money, the issue here is not the military, nor gays.  The issue is the courts, and the utterly impeachable offense of failing to mount a defense by the Executive branch.

163 #4 nails it.

"I'll only stick the head in"

164 O/T: For all the Christie fan-morons and moronettes, Hot Air has some Chris Christie pr0n up in the QOTD slot, 23 minutes worth.

165 Anyone who thinks Navy women and women Marines are not hot has never been in NYC during Fleet Week. Slim and strong, lovely without makeup, feminine even with regulation haircuts, radiant with confidence.

Sadly for me, they're almost all into men.

166

Anyone who thinks Navy women and women Marines are not hot has never been in NYC during Fleet Week. Slim and strong, lovely without makeup, feminine even with regulation haircuts, radiant with confidence.

Sadly for me, they're almost all into men.

if you find one who is into women, please video tape it, for..er.. proof and send it to me.

167 It's not an absolute bar (that would require taking the White House back), but controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee might help weed out a few liberal judicial nominees.

Just saying:



"Magistrate Judge Virginia Phillips and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper were confirmed by unanimous voice vote of the Senate on Nov. 10, 1999"

When the entire Senate, Republicans included, vote unanimously for an appointee, switching nominal control of the Judiciary Committee from the Democrats to Institutional Republicans ain't weeding out dick.

Just saying.

168 Oh, so this is the new strategy now.  Get people interested in challenging laws  in court that Obama doesn't like anyway but can't get Congress to change, and then when it comes time for their turn in the trial, Obama's team sits on their hands.  This has to be unethical on some level, right?

169 The other option is to significantly reduce funding to Federal Courts; zero funding the entire 9th circuit - would be good start. Then provision funding for criminal trials in a 95-5% ratio to all of this tampering and writ writing. Just reduce the volume of crap they can pull will help.

170 Oh, so this is the new strategy now.  Get people interested in challenging laws  in court that Obama doesn't like anyway but can't get Congress to change, and then when it comes time for their turn in the trial, Obama's team sits on their hands.  This has to be unethical on some level, right?

Posted by: chemjeff at September 10, 2010 09:07 AM (E97ku)

YEP.

171 can someone challange the frigging Commerce Clause? Is that possible?

172 So the new standard is: the executive officer is only responsible for faithfully executing the laws of the nation that he finds agreeable.

173 i would be willing to live with interstate tariffs if it meant the commerce clause can't be used for anything and everything.

174 Moral of the story.  If a FEDERAL JUDGE believes that PINK UNICORNS are more useful than ARMORED HUMVEES, she can decide Military policy???

YES!  And if you don't agree, you're a H8R!!!!11!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!!

175 Obama, you asshole: if you want to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" man up and push for it and do it the right way.

you're asking for a lot here

176 it looks like everyone is still tied after last nights game in fantasy pick'em as it was a push.

177 DADT did not outlaw gays in the military.  It actually just said that the issue of sexuality was not subject to investigation by the military.

So if the act is repealed, does that mean that the military will now be able to investigate and kick out gays?

The courts can declare a law unconstitutional, but that does not put another law in its place.

178 Ben, I would like to see the Commerce Clause challenged from the perspective of who gave the Federal Government the power to determine it's application. It flows from "everything not enumerated, is reserved to the states"; that the enumeration of the Commerce clause - that is the specific implementation of it should be initiated by the states, and approved by the State legislatures.

179 MY opinion is that the Homos cand Blow me...OK

180 If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were unconstitutional, then "victimized" members of the military could sue the government institutions, everyone involved.

Posted by: maverick muse at September 10, 2010 08:06 AM (H+LJc)

You mean like all those "minority" farmers who were denied loans/grants to farm their 2000 sq ft family grave plots.  The ones where the government didn't even make an effort to present a case, they just settled for billions and are now asking congress for even more billions.

181 The issues with Gays in the military is the same as women in combat units.  Not so much that they can't do the job, but rather how having sex with a team member affects decision making.  Will there be dissension in the ranks if the squad members think Private Bob is getting a pass because he is blowing Sgt. Larry?

182

Gays will be a protected group.  That means that good soldiers will be okay.  But the losers will be protected.  Exceptions will be made.  See Hultgren.  Female. One of two women to be the first women to grad from F14 school.  Did so with failing grades. Hultgren blew an approach and was killed and the other was grounded for unsafe flying.

Navy's response was to try to find out who leaked the grades.  It's worth your career to suggest that women reduce unit efficiency. Consequently, officially, it doesn't happen.  Protected group.

Maj. Hasan was passed along despite his obvious failings and whackjobbery because those in a position to speak out were afraid of destroying their own careers by being accused of Islamophobia.  Gen. Casey's response, within hours, was to say he hoped that this wouldn't destroy the military's diversity, which is its strength.  IOW, if you see another Muslim whackjob, he doesn't want to hear about it. Message received, general.  Protected group.

Then we have the peculiar issues here. If a gay subordinate is hit on by a gay superior and refuses, is the former guilty of homophobia?  If the subordinate is straight?  What does their commander do if it comes to his attention officially?

If straight men can't be trusted to keep their hands off women in mixed barracks or shower rooms, why do we think gays are going to be restrained philosopher kings about the whole thing?  And, being protected, what happens when one of them slips up?  Nada, that's what. To be officially cognizant of it would be "homophobia".

The activists pushing this will insist no such thing will happen.  Remember the feminists insisting that physical standards will not be lowered?  Lasted about fourteen seconds.

To repeat, to forestall the accusations that I think gays won't make good soldiers, I'm not talking about the good troops, but about the losers.  It will not be possible to deal with them as good order and discipline require.

 

183 #175 - more options include:
1) Abolishing these courts infested with liberals

2) Stripping jurisdiction from them which would prevent them from hearing these cases (ok, well, it likely wouldn't prevent liberal judges because we can see they don't give a shit about 'law').

3) Impeaching judges.

This will never happen as long as we continue to vote Mike Castle's into office so we can 'get control of the committees.'

184 I wandered kinda far afield of your question. But let me put it like this. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." It does NOT say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except for military policy." Right?


Wow. Just blatant ignorance there, Gabe. There are regulations against many types of speech in the UCMJ even including political speech.
The military member does not benefit from the same full protections of the Constitution that the civilian does.
Name another "job" that can throw your ass in jail for not showing up.

185 There is a reason that the term, "Martial Law" means a suspension of Constitutional Law.

186

Um, guys,

You do realize that the armies of the ancient world had a considerable number of openly gay individuals, especialy Sparta (where homosexual conduct among the hoplites was common and, some scholars believe, institutional), Athens, Macedonia (Alexander the Great actually had his gay lover with him on campaign) and Rome (Julius Caesar was a notorious bisexual).

It doesn't seem to have hurt their performance.  In fact, the Spartans believed that it actually helped unit cohesion.

While homosexual conduct ain't my cup of tea, there is no historical evidence that it actually hurts military performance.  The opposition to gays in the military is likely based not so much on opposition to gays or homosexual conduct but to being creeped out by it. While that may be understandable, it doesn't seem to have been an issue with some of the greatest military machines of all time.

So, RELAX!!!

187 Pro-
Some ancient armies also ate the vanquished. That wouldn't go over too well either with a predominantly Christian military.

188

Kidney,

You're being ridiculous. No one is suggesting eating anybody. But the claim that homosexual conduct hurts the military has been dispoven for thousands of years.

Oh, and BTW, there were plenty of Christians serving in the Roman legions in both the mid-to-late Empire and, especially, in the successor Byzantine Enpire.

189 The military is a joke anyway.  20 million illegal invaders in this country and they're halfway around the world babysitting illiterate goatherds.

190

The cultures are so alien that drawing parallels is hazardous.

The Greek culture (the same people who gave us, among other things, democracy, drama, comedy and much of our language) is "alien" to us? The Roman culture (who gave us the Republican form of government, more of our language, including such "alien" terms as "Senate;" and even, to an extent, Christianity) is "alien" to us?

Oooooooooohhhhhh-kay.

Might want to read a book sometime. Then maybe you would know that slaves were not permitted to serve in the Spartan phalanx or the Roman military.

191

You all are missing the REAL story here.

The Government did not put up any type of real defense... did not counter any of the other sides arguements... even their closing sucked...

They THREW the CASE... so now the Judge is the one who throws out DADT, and Obama does not have to fight the military and Congress over it.

192

While homosexual conduct ain't my cup of tea, there is no historical evidence that it actually hurts military performance.  The opposition to gays in the military is likely based not so much on opposition to gays or homosexual conduct but to being creeped out by it. While that may be understandable, it doesn't seem to have been an issue with some of the greatest military machines of all time.

So, RELAX!!!

Posted by: Pro Cynic

Notice how when someone raises an objection, the response is either to "relax", "get over it" or re-enact Rosa Parks on a friggin bus?

 

The shower issue has been raised several times, and no one has been honest enough to address it. What will policy be when Gays serve openly? Will their shower access be restricted? if not, then may a male service member insist on showering with women? If not, why not? And can we count upon the Rosa Parks Society to support them?

 

Here's a hint: the Navy is already dealing with such problems on surface combatants, and faces a larger issue with forcing women onto submarines. Check out the lists of Captain's masts, NCP and discharges. For extra credit, check out the prgegnancy rate for first term enlistees.

 

To add to what was noted before about protected classes, men were vilified after the Tailhook convention blew up. There were several cases where women were involved as well, including one who gave false testimony. The Navy refused to investigate any of them. The Army experienced the same thing at Aberdeen proving ground with training units. Women even complained that they were being urged to testify.

193

Current equaivalent of latifundia? None. But go back 150 years and we did have them in the antebellum South.

The Romans had (and still have) a republican form of government (until the Empire, and even then they were still a generally free society); so do we. They had (and still have) a Senate; so do we. They had a place for public debate in the Forum; so do we, whether it's a town square, a park, a mall (in California) or a "forum." They valued rhetoric in their politicians; so do we. Their politicans had careers in the military and/or the law; so do ours.

If that is "alien," then, for cryin' out loud, Britain is "alien." Anything but the US would be "alien." Using your logic, we shouldn't have used blitzkrieg tactics or night naval attacks because they came from "alien" cultures in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, respectively.

Even if what you say was taken to be true, the military principles would be the same. You can change the weapons, the place, the time, the technology and the tactics, but some principles of warfare remain the same.

BTW -- The Spartan army was created specifically to oppress the Helots. Sparta was similar to Athens until one very large Helot revolt.  The Spartans determined to not let that happen again and changed their entire society accordingly, based on the philosophy of a semi-mythical character named Lykurgos. That is alien, but what they taught us militarily is still applicable in most instances.

The Romans armed the slaves only on very rare occasions (such as after Cannae), but generally did not.

194

Notice how when someone raises an objection, the response is either to "relax", "get over it" or re-enact Rosa Parks on a friggin bus?

I addressed the objection with historical facts. You just don't like the facts.

195

Notice how when someone raises an objection, the response is either to "relax", "get over it" or re-enact Rosa Parks on a friggin bus?

I addressed the objection with historical facts. You just don't like the facts.

Posted by: Pro Cynic

 

I note that though you chose to cite some of my remarks, you avoided addressing them. Again.

You're trying to compare armies of the Ancient World with the US Armed Forces of the 21st century. The US Armed Forces today bear only some resemblance to what they were 100 years ago. The military structure of the Civil War didn't survive World War I. It isn't apt.

 

Try reading John Keegan's works on the evolution of war and the forces that engae in them.

196

Try reading John Keegan's works on the evolution of war and the forces that engae in them.

Been there, done that. He has never said anything that contradicts my point.

197

give a citation, if you will, of an effective gay friendly army mobilized for general war in the last millennium, so I may quibble with it.  The Israeli army is the closest thing I can think of

 

This was my point as well.

And I would assert that the IDF is another poor example for comparison. The IDF does not project power beyond its own borders, except for expeditionary purposes (active ops). The bulk of its forces are actually reservists while active duty troops are comprised of inital enlistees, staff, support and some active combat formations. Most of their bases and operational areas are within range of the main population areas of their country. To be a useful comparative body, they would have to have some appreciable degree of troops deployed in close quarters for extended periods of time (overseas bases, ships on blue-water deployments). I'm unsure as to what percentage of active IDF personnel actually utilize some sort of base housing, but my guess is that it's rather low.

198

I think your facts, such as they are, are not on point. The Romans had something called a Senate yes, as do we.  Their Senate was a glorified advisory board under the kings and a joke under the Emperors.  They had families as we, yet I don't have the right to have my children put to death for insubordination.  Our military commanders cannot order you to blow them, and then have you killed if you don't.  I do like the Athenian practice of exiling defeated politicians, though we don't get to do that either.

After the Tarquins were driven out, Rome did not have kings -- HATED kings, in fact; even Caesar could not get the title -- they instead had two elected consuls, who served as executives and heads of state. Elected by public assembly, usually from the ranks of the Senate.  Calling the Senate a "glorified advisory board" is largely accurate for domestic affairs, but not for defense and foreign policy, which was an authority they jealously guarded.

As for families putting children to death, remember that the Romans (like all ancient societies) had no police and punishment of crimes was largely a civil action. Families putting children to death largely ended in the Anglosphere with William the Conqueror. But infanticide in particular was very common elsewhere, including in Europe, until the Renaissance.

As for gay-friendly armed forces in the last 1000 years, after the fall of Rome most homosexuals were driven back into the closet. Finding discussion of gays at all during that period is extremely difficult at best,

199

And I would assert that the IDF is another poor example for comparison. The IDF does not project power beyond its own borders, except for expeditionary purposes (active ops). The bulk of its forces are actually reservists while active duty troops are comprised of inital enlistees, staff, support and some active combat formations. Most of their bases and operational areas are within range of the main population areas of their country. To be a useful comparative body, they would have to have some appreciable degree of troops deployed in close quarters for extended periods of time (overseas bases, ships on blue-water deployments).

If that is your basis for comparison, your historical parallels will only go back for the last 400 years or so, and only involve a few countries. You likely won't find any avowed "gay-friendly" armed forces, but mostly because societyal convention would not allow for its discussion. Another reason to go back to the ancient world, from which we have (quasi-)reliable records of such arrangements.

200

I have little quibble with what you wrote here.  Are you still contending that our culture is similar enough the ancients to draw parallels in personal and martial relationships?

If you are speaking of "personal and martial relationships" in the context of personal relationships in a martial setting, then, yes, I am saying that. I'm not saying the "institutionally encouraged homosexuality" of the Spartan phalanx is the perfect parallel, which is why I have also cited Athens, Macedon and Rome as examples of gay-friendly (or at least gay-tolerant) armed forces.

Humans change. Their values change. Even their physiques change. But human nature does not. Each person will react to war differently, but that reaction is the same now as it was in Sparta, Athens, Macedon and Rome. 

201

I wouldn't even go back that far, as you noted with the plantation comparison.  We just aren't the same people anymore.  Not that we couldn't be in extremis.  But we just are not comparable on a normal basis.

Like I said, humans change. Their values change. Even their physiques change. But human nature does not.

202

Oh though.  Did you accept that Helots served with the Spartan army on several occasions?  Even wiki, fwiw, notes this.  And you are correct, it was quite the controversy at the time because it called the whole Spartan system into question.  None the less, the historians tell us they did.

That is correct. But like Rome's use of slaves in the legions, it was extremely rare.

203

Anyway, I've said my piece.  I, personally, find analogies to the ancients unconvincing for the reasons stated. 

We shall have to continue to disagree.

So be it. I'm pretty sure the world won't end if we don't agree. Of course, if it does, then I'll feel really stupid.

204 Ends...

205 Some laws are more equal than others. Imagine if a republican didn't seek to uphold a civil rights law, the uproar would be deafening. It is outrageous that in DOMA and on Prop 8 the government has failed to present any defense for laws strongly approved by the population. The President and Governor are failing to faithfully enforce the laws of the US and California. However I doubt we could get a quorum to impeach them for this gross neglect of duty.

206

If that is your basis for comparison, your historical parallels will only go back for the last 400 years or so, and only involve a few countries. You likely won't find any avowed "gay-friendly" armed forces, but mostly because societyal convention would not allow for its discussion. Another reason to go back to the ancient world, from which we have (quasi-)reliable records of such arrangements.

Posted by: Pro Cynic

A lack of a contemporary basis for comparison does not automatically mean that an ancient example is now somehow more valid. And forces from that time have the same problems and more. Differences in social factors are still in play, and campaigns were seasonal, sea warfare was coastal. Large standing armies like those we possess today did not exist, except during active campaigning. Many forces in the ancient world never had any military housing; they deliberately commandeered quarters from the local civilian population. 1. It was cheaper. 2. It kept such places in check, through the double effect of nearby troops and a drain on resources.

The closest, apt basis for comparison is the addition of women to US Forces, especially women aboard surface combatants. There is no short term element, no off base housing, no nine to five and off the base jobs. look at deployments that are nine - fifteen months long, and contrast between peacetime and wartime deployments.

Next, check with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Corps has the worst housing of all the services ; most of the other branches did away with open squadbays decades ago. When I served, they were announcing with fanfare the construction of the first two man room complex (dubbed 'Howard Johnsons').

Then try checking on statistics from co-ed dorms in colleges. I've heard that some even installed unisex facilities. Were there any problems? Was there an atmosphere where complaints would be hard, or were they suppressed? That's another problem, that others have cited above. People openly admitted that they passed Maj Hasan because they decided that to speak out was career suicide.

207 Don't like it? Don't Join! -- Teh Fred's Policy

208 That's strange.  I've read the constitution several times and I can't find anything that could be remotely interpretred as such.  Dipshit judge needs to be barred from any type of practicing of law, period.

209 "Y'know, if there's one bit of judicial activism that I'm warming to, it's the concept that someone entering the courtroom with the intent of "throwing the game" despite their role should be held in contempt."

Rather than that, I'd suggest people start filing bar complaints against DOJ lawyers who are NOT zealously advocating for their client, the people of the United States.  This judge made her undoubtedly predetermined ruling, but what the government did that was inexcusable was fail to adequately preserve all that it could for appeal.

"Virginia A. Phillips.  UC Riverside 1979, JD Berkely, 1982.  Nominated by Clinton Jan. 26, 1999, confirmed, November 10, 1999.  Senate Majority Leader: Trent Lott. Judiciary Chair: Orin Hatch.  Number of GOP senators: 55

Tell me again why we need to settle for 3 horned RINOs just so the GOP can have a majority?"

Unlike the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts, District Court judges never get a lot of scrutiny.  Historically, they are basically proposed by their home-state Senators and then just rubber-stamped by both the President and the rest of the Senate.  I don't think that can be specifically attributed to the GOP majority at the time.

210

your historical parallels will only go back for the last 400 years or so, and only involve a few countries. You likely won't find any avowed "gay-friendly" armed forces, but mostly because societyal convention would not allow for its discussion

I would argue that societal convention  is the biggest part of the argument - it's not that homosexual activity is incompatible with military activity, it's that it is incompatible with the good order and discipline of the service.  Soldiers come from the broader society, and career soldiers tend to reflect the more conservative elements of their society.  My kids are much less emotional about gays than I am - maybe in a generation or two, the whole question won't be a big deal.  But right now, it is a big deal, and the current administration is choosing social experimentation over fighting and winning the nation's wars. 

Why use the military for this?  Why not professional sports teams?  Show me an openly gay NBA or NFL player, and use that for the social experiment.  The Army is kinda busy these days. 

211 designer shoes , UGG Bailey Button

212 Factual findings are meaningless when one side takes a dive.It is no surprise that Judge Phillips went to radical leftwing Berkley Law School. She's a leftwing elitist appointed by former Pres. Clinton. Once again a single leftwing judge is overruling what scores of millions of people support. Again, a judge is knocking out the institutional support that the judiciary must have, if its decisions are to have any effect. Once again, the courts are ignoring, at their peril, the political question doctrine, which should reserve to the other branches, issues that are more properly decided by the political and military branches of government.

 If lefties sued Bush on the economy, or with respect to Bush EPA regs, would we expect the Obama Administration to vigorously defend those policies? And if it didn't defend those policies, what 'fact finding' would the court be engaged in? Nothing. It would just be a ratification of the leftwinger's presentation. In those circumstances, where the elites refuse to defend the duly enacted laws of the country, the Courts should have appointed a special counsel to defend what more than half the country approves of. The left/democraps have done their best to destroy business, to destroy marriage and  families, to destroy constitutional principles.

213 the blog is so crazy,but the spam too!

214

More discount windows 7 product key and office 2010 product key,100% activation

http://www.salekey.net

http://www.windows7keysale.net