The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Court Rules "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Unconstitutional - Republicans Cheer
MplsOsiris
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A court in California has ruled Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be unconstitutional saying it violates first amendment rights. The case was brought to the court by the Log Cabin Republicans.
I, for one, never thought I'd see the day when the Republicans took this policy to court.
I, for one, never thought I'd see the day when the Republicans took this policy to court.
A while back I hated where my life was and where my life was going. Now I'm happily engaged, in the best shape I've been in since high school, have a bunch of wild stories and most importantly I enjoy my life! You can check out what I'm up to next at http://coolbyintent.com/blog
MplsOsiris on
0
Posts
Edit: News story (well, blog)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/federal-judge-declares-us-military-ban-on-openly-gay-service-members-unconstitutional-.html
September 9, 2010 | 6:07 pm
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don't ask, don't tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.
Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.
The ruling comes just over a month after a federal judge in San Francisco tossed out California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, providing back-to-back victories for gay rights advocates seeking policy changes in the courts that have eluded them in Congress and at the ballot box. The case was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest political organization for gays in the GOP, in 2004.
[Updated, 6:30 p.m.: "As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane ‘don't ask, don't tell’ statute violates the Constitution,” said R.Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans & Liberty Education Fund. “Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican service members, but all American service members."]
The ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell," which remains stalled in the Senate despite support from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.
President Obama has called the ban a threat to national security, and the U.S. House in May passed legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” if an ongoing Pentagon study determines the military can adapt to the change without harming defense readiness.
Despite Obama’s criticism of the policy, the Justice Department vigorously defended “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ and even tried to undercut the case with a technical legal challenge over whether the named plaintiffs were dues-paying members of the organization that filed the lawsuit: the Log Cabin Republicans.
-- Phil Willon in Riverside County
Anyway. Good decision. Is the opinion up somewhere to read?
It's because some people believe Abe Lincoln was gay.
You know that thing where some history scholars claim that everyone in history was gay? Some of them think Abe Lincoln was gay. He was born in a log cabin. It is pretty absurd.
Anyhow there is pretty much no way the SCOTUS upholds this, if it gets appealed.
Doubt it'll get to SCOTUS before congress takes action on it anyway.
HOpefully.
Also:
http://online.logcabin.org/about/history.html
So I could see the Log Cabin Republicans essentially being the social justice wing of the Republican party, though so extremely watered down that they do essentially just beg to not be actively oppressed.
MWO: Adamski
It's like watching a girl go back to an abusive boyfriend .
Maybe things will be different this time?
I guess that's one way to get rid of DADT. Best thing Obama can do is to just go with it. It may not be the way he wanted to go about it, but there it is. Take it, check it off the agenda, be done with it.
Seriously. They really are the abused [strike]wife[/strike] boyfriend of politics.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We'll see what he does.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6890DU20100910
It's unconstitutional all of a sudden because people/congress/the constitution aren't infallible.
Would you say the same thing about discrimination against people because of race? Jim Crow? Slavery? Those things were perfectly legal and constitutional and held up by the courts as constitutional on multiple occasions until society/judges decided they were unconstitutional "all of a sudden."
Well, exactly. The actual constitution has nothing to do with this, it's just that Americans have always interpreted the constitution in accordance with their biases and now their biases are changing. But something can't be constitutional one minute and unconstitutional the next - the actual document doesn't change the way societies do. It's just being used as a tool here. To achieve a noble goal, I might add.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
a lot more interesting is my guess
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I'd be gay just for the awesome sex then.
See: Republicans.
Even more interesting if there were also as many gay people as homophobes claim. Just walking down the street would put a God fearing straight man in mortal danger.
I can see where the homophobes get their idea that every gay man is out to have sex with them in particular, though. I mean, it's not that uncommon for guys to subconsciously (or consciously for that matter) size up every woman around them as a potential sexual partner. It's not really a stretch of the imagination that a gay man might do the same.
The thing is, you don't generally act on that. It's a bit absurd to assume that gay men don't have at least the same basic restraint straight men do.
Not only the libido, but the sheer animal magnetism and ability to seduce and corrupt every straight person they come across.
Keeping it on the downlow must be a part of the gay agenda.
I think you're discovering how the constitution actually works. For a couple hundred years now, our society and government has continually decided that though the letter of the constitution hasn't changed, it's meaning to us and it's application has. There are basic principles bound up in the constitution -- like, say, the first amendment right to free speech or the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process -- but what that specifically means to us has changed substantially over the history of the union.
So, yes, the constitution is indeed being used as a tool -- a tool to protect and expand our civil rights. That's why we made it.
So this guy just outed himself as a barely-contained rapist I guess.
Sounds like we should call the Ghostbusters.
Well, what was he supposed to do?! He was surrounded by girls!
(p.s. obviously the solution is co-ed showers, Starship Troopers style)
Unless you're an originalist, in which case you're stupid.
For everyone, not just soldiers.
As an aside; I did serve with an openly gay soldier. He had a scar that nearly encircled his entire neck. As a civilian, someone had come up behind him slit him open. Dude turned around, took the knife, and murdered his attacker. No one had any issue with him, leading me to believe that most guys feel uncomfortable with someone who wants to give them a blowjob but are fine with people who can suck dick and then kill them.
FACT: Many Republicans seem to have an uncontrollable desire to sleep with Gays.
See: more than I care to count.
... guys I just broke the code! That's why so many Republicans want to keep Gays oppressed! Fear of being presented with an irresistable 'offer', if you know what I mean.
Holy shit that dude is hardcore. And that was pre-military? Gay, straight or otherwise, that is one guy I'd never, ever want to piss off.
I was going to comment about a wonderful piece the Daily Show did on the number of countries with gays openly serving in their military, but in trying to get the actual number I finally found the first websense blocked wiki page. o_O For "adult content". What??
NO. There are some people on this earth that the gods have forbidden seeing naked. You really wanna shower next to that creepy looking dude on the bus? Or that weird woman who has her hair formed into a hat.
Also, it helps to sometimes have things left to the imagination.
I really don't see what the problem with gays in the military is.
"Oh no, they might see me naked and get turned on!"
Are you worried about that when you shower after working out at the gym? Take it as a compliment if they do.
Maybe people are worried that gays won't find them good enough to hit on. In addition to being unattractive to the opposite sex, now people with your set of genitalia will actively out you as unattractive. To me that's much scarier than someone thinking I am attractive.
Time to move on.
It'll need congressional action anyways. Removing DADT is like the first part of a doctor breaking your leg to re-set it - without the 2nd part it'll end up doing more harm than good.
DADT was arguably a shield protecting gays in the military, from Article 125 of the UCMJ.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000925----000-.html
If it's decided that homosexuality is "unnatural", then every sexual active homosexual member of the military is in trouble. And they won't have DADT to protect them from being questioned about it. Altering the UCMJ requries an act of Congress.
edit: what mcdermott asked