Printable View
That's a good point. Service members are by nature an institutionalized class and depend on the leadership for guidance. I've read a few stories in the last few days talking about how a lot of gays and lesbians are coming out to their units or to each other, but not to leadership. I think that says a lot, but it's obviously not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
~BB~
I just watched that documentary. It's a very scary thought. I never heard of the Bildaberg Group. The police state is also very scary. I am investigating as the video suggested. It is also scary to find out the treasurer at one time was the president of the Federal Reserve. Thank you for directing me to this video.
face it no president, is going to please everyone. Never has it happened and never will it happen!
I agree! As in most cases there is much more to it than just passing a law. I do agree that passing the law is the first step...
welcome. Another
YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainPlanet
I know there's a point here, somewhere.
From Poliglot, a politcal column in one of the most reputable gay newspapers
Does yesterday's ruling mean the new military policy on accepting gays has been stayed? Not exactly:The judges' order means that a temporary stay of the trial court injunction of DADT has been granted until the Ninth Circuit can decide -- sometime after Oct. 25 -- whether to issue a stay pending the appeal of the case to the Ninth Circuit.http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/...t-stays-d.html
This does not immediately change the military's policy of not enforcing DADT, as the Oct. 15guidance from Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley stated that, while seeking a stay, "the Department of Defense will abide by the terms of the injunction" and stated that "additional guidance" would come if a stay is granted.
This also is not a stay of the order that will last through the appeal. This is only a temporary stay granted through the time when the Ninth Circuit can decide -- sometime after the Oct. 25 deadline given to the LCR attorneys to respond to the stay request -- whether to issue a stay pending the outcome of the appeal. The decision will likely come soon after the Oct. 25 submission by LCR because the court will not hear oral arguments in the case and stated in its order that the government will not be allowed to file a reply brief, which would happen in the ordinary course of appellate briefing.If a stay is granted pending the appeal, however, DADT would likely go back into effect in the interim, as the appeal is not even scheduled to complete the briefing process until the second week of March 2011.The Obama administration is trying to change this horrible policy in a correct and more important lasting fashion. The "stay" is for only for a few days and is to give the Plaintiffs, who got the policy overturned time to further reinforce their arguments, which they get to do without the Justice Department getting to respond. The Court has already indicated it was not inclined to grant a more lasting stay. The matter will be appealed but its far more likely to be unsuccessful later if there is no real change in how the military get its job done with gays serving openly during that time.
The Justice Department has to defend even odious laws like DADT unless they are clearly and incontrovertibly unconstitutional. People on the right have wanted to impeach Obama since before he took office. They have since advocated that he should be impeached for not doing enough to enforce laws on immigration. They would love to have him be derelict in his duty in some concrete way, like not following the process of the law, to give some superficial legal cover for their seditious actions.
A fight, whether its in the ring, or for rights isn't won or lost until the bell rings. Any "knockout punch" that Obama throws before then such an executive order, or any dive his administration takes in this lawsuit might win the round but not the battle. That will only be won through legislation (fat chance with all the present obstructionism) or through a thorough judicial process (which is what the present plan is trying to allow)
FK
Well, the UK has allowed practicing homosexuals openly in it's ranks for years. From wjhat I understand it was never an issue,there were many more issues with allowing women into most jobs ,even though women aren't allowed to do certain jobs even today,there has been no end of issues. The US was ahead of us on integrating women front, so perhaps they can learn from us on serving homosexuals ?. What people have to remember however is that being in the military isn't the same as working for a civilian employer and military law as opposed to civilian law, values and standards have to be different and harsh in areas that many civvies would not understand. This has to be done to ensure a competent fighting force. Iam not in the military but I am in a job where some are ex army ,which has to have different employment rules than you get in most civilian jobs, for it to function effectively and more important for employees safety and wellbeing.
It is suicidal ,frankly for a country to have some civilian values within it's military. So some people need to smell the coffee. That being said, practicing homosexuals can and do make excellent soldiers,why lose the talent? and this comes from someone very conservative. What you do, is make them subject to those same values and standards that you subject hetrosexual soldiers too.If needs be make it harsher for all. A homosexual nco for instance who takes advantage of a male lower rank can be punished in the same way ,that a hetro sexual nco takes advantage of a female soldier.
But Iam aware that while we speak the same language america is different culturally. So this is why, I wouldn't completely condemn obama's caution, as perhaps it would be less workable in the US military because of the attitude and culture of it's soldiers. You wouldn't want ,in this time of world strife to have an army with internal problems because of political correctness being forced on it . Perhaps you need to get to the route of why american people think this way about homosexuals? We all know for instance what many in the african american community think of Gay marriage so I can't see them being tolerant or what rednecks might think of sharing a barrack room with am open homosexual.
Homosexuals can be subject to prejudice in the UK too, but there isn't this ingrained fear of them, that there seems to be in the states.
So you would prefer chaos & anarchy ???Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
As to policy, morale issues, etc. It isn't that simple. There is strongly worded regulation & policy against sexual harassment & assault, yet incidents continue to occur with alarming regularity. The same with fraternization.
As to guidance, the MC Commandant has openly stated he is not in favor of it - at least he didn't do what Gen Pace did... He also stated that the Marine Corps troops are largely against it, so there is a long uphill fight - at last in the Marines.
Face it the top brass doesn't want it changed.
Then you have to consider that the entire DADT is a mask to the underlying regulation which in essence states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service". Removing DADT alone without changing the underlying regulation will only allow punitive investigations to happen again like they were in the early 90s.
Paladin - Correct me if I am wrong, the President is in charge of the armed forces. If he put an executive order for zero tolerance when it comes to discrimination and bullying against gays for every branch, no one could go against it. If they did there would be consequences. It would go along swimmingly eventually. In the armed services you serve a chain of command, do you not?
I mean when they allowed women into the armed forces there was a lot of gripe, hate, and fight against it. Did they still allow it? YES! Because it should be a human right to serve your country proudly no matter sex or sexuality.
I am sure there will be bumps along the way. There were plenty when women were allowed to serve. Men couldn't take a woman doing a "mans" job. That is part of the sacrifice they made. They were brave enough to still serve and eventually they found their place in the armed forces. Gays and lesbians will have to do the same.
Women wanted equal rights. Including serving in the armed forces. They knew there would be hate, degradation, and possibly violence. They knew all of this. You can bet the GLBT know this too, but that freedom means more to them. Their basic human right is what they want. Is what anyone wants.
Discrimination is wrong and the constitution says we are all free. It is what our country is supposedly based on. Who cares if the officials that are now in charge are against DADT. They follow orders from the higher ups. Paladin are you making excuses? It feels like it.
Keeping DADT in place promotes hate and discrimination. Do you not see that? It does more harm, than good. There is just no excuse for discrimination in my mind.