Don't Ask Dont Tell Please!

deernutz · 10-13-2010, 03:12 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101013/...pphu-post-form

Just wondering what everyone thinks of this. I know there’s some currently serving and some vets on here.

I myself believe this is not the time for it. It will be a really bad idea.

I think they're going to have to come up with a compensation packet for the soldiers who will not abide by the new change and let them get out. You can't tell someone for 10 yrs gays are bad in the military then change it and say you have the wrong morals and ethics now deal with it. NO-GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Rev · 10-13-2010, 03:17 PM

I don't think you need to ask, some are pretty easy to spot!

They have always been in the service and as long as they do what they are supposed to do, I don't see a problem with it.

sachiko · 10-13-2010, 03:19 PM

I can't see how one federal judge has the authority to give orders to the military. What if some judge decides that the war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. Does the military just have to quit and come home? Can a federal judge decide that women must serve in combat just like men?

I could be wrong but I don't think the concept of military service is in keeping, in general, with the Constitution. As I understand it, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not conform to the Constitution. The whole idea of involuntary service through the draft is certainly not constiutional. Sheeeesh!

I think this judge should be told to take that order and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

Fieldmouse · 10-13-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyslittlegirl

I can't see how one federal judge has the authority to give orders to the military. What if some judge decides that the war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. Does the military just have to quit and come home? Can a federal judge decide that women must serve in combat just like men?

I could be wrong but I don't think the concept of military service is in keeping, in general, with the Constitution. As I understand it, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not conform to the Constitution. The whole idea of involuntary service through the draft is certainly not constiutional. Sheeeesh!

I think this judge should be told to take that order and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

You are correct. In the military, the constitution is what you fight to protect. However, the UCMJ is what you live by. A civilian court has no authority here.

LBR · 10-13-2010, 08:04 PM

The U.S. Military considers homosexuality (and variations thereof) to be a mental illness, and therefore grounds for dismissal. My bet is there's a reason for this. I for one would NOT have been comfortable sharing shower bays and barracks with openly gay men. Yes, they were there, and we knew who they were. We timed our showers accordingly.

These idiots need to quit trying to use the Military for social experiments and let it do it's job. Course that's one problem you will have more of with a CIC who's never served.

sachiko · 10-14-2010, 03:13 AM

I don't think the guys who wrote the Constitution intended our country to be governed by unelected judges. I think that was supposed to be the job of Congress.

deernutz · 10-14-2010, 03:30 AM

I definately agree with a lot of what your all saying. It just irks me that a CA judge thinks their all high and mighty and can make decisions like this. Of course it's a CA judge which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Champlain Islander · 10-14-2010, 03:34 AM

Ultimately it should boil down to one basic question. Will the mission and effectiveness of the military be compromised by allowing gay soldiers to be members? If the answer is no then they should be allowed to join and fight without hiding their sexual preference. If the answer is yes then they should be barred from joining and any military person discovered to be gay should be removed quickly. The don't ask don't tell is nothing more than not dealing with the issue and was wrong when they started it and wrong now. The DADT program made a farce of the existing policy. Look the other way and it doesn’t exist. No wonder we are in so much trouble now. I can say from my experience when I was serving a gay person in my baracks wouldn't have been received too well. It would have provided a distraction and when you are fighting in a battle zone a distraction could cost you your life.

Fieldmouse · 10-14-2010, 03:44 AM

CI, the military has become the experiment in the 30 or so years. We now have female combat platoon. When I served, they were allowing females to serve on ships. Seems harmless enough don't it? Not to me and the last place I wanted to be was on a ship with females. There were many many extra rules in place. However, that's not the worst of it. Pregnant women weren't allow to go to sea. Many females used this as a way to not deploy but yet still receive a paycheck. I can only imagine the new rules required in order to handle openly 3 dollar bills.

vc1111 · 10-14-2010, 05:01 AM

Quote:

These idiots need to quit trying to use the Military for social experiments and let it do it's job. Course that's one problem you will have more of with a CIC who's never served.

Amen.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...

The military machine SHOULD be a place of the highest, utmost, bias, period. For example, if six foot eight, bald, males of African descent make the best combat pilots, then that is the people we should be putting in our combat aircraft. This is not an equal opportunity employer. Our mission is to kill enough people and break enough things to make our enemies acquiesce. We are not out to make friends and influence people when we send combat troops into war.

If there is even a slight chance that either morale or the larger mission could be adversely affected by the presence of openly homosexual or bisexual behaviors, those behaviors should be jettisoned from the ranks with all dispatch...on a permanent basis.

While I am not one to use slurs against homosexuals or bisexuals, I am also not willing to be subjected to their sexual behaviors or even their courting rituals in the close quarters that are part of housing and transporting large numbers of troops. In the civilian world they may have the "right" to engage in those practices behind closed doors, but the military is about anything BUT individual "rights."

National security is not a game.