"Don't ask don't tell", 21st century apartheid in America, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 13-10-2009 @ 01:10 AM by Southern Guardian

"Dont ask dont tell" has always been unconstitutional and there is no acception for its continued existence. The mere fact Republicans and Democrats continue to keep in place however tells me that there is still this acceptance for unconstitutional segregation we should have ended well before the 21st century. The 14th ammendment clearly states that:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.usconstitution.net...

All american citizens deserve a right to life, liberty and property. However there are tax paying americans who are barred from courageously serving their country.... ironically they have to pay their taxes to the military which increases in expenditure by billions every few years and yet these very tax payers who are still unconstitutionally barred from serving are told to "keep shut". Its easy for people to yak off their heads about "freedom" "liberty" and "opportunity" and yet certain tax paying americans are barred from freely serving their country while practicing their freedoms.

Iv had debates before regarding "dont ask dont tell" and the answers from mostly those on the rightwing are the "insercurities of military individuals to serve with homosexuals" or that "it would be a distraction". Really?? This the excuse to strip other americans of their rights as citizens?? I mean its really funny... whats to stop a homosexual person anymore than that a heterosexual one from joining the military and catching up on trouble? Only this time this policy of "dont ask dont tell" only assists in these "distrations" from being hidden in rare cases. I mean there are people who want to talk their heads off about defending the constitution for their oil wars and yet we can't uphold the constitution through allowing all americans the right to serve their nation?? There is absolutely no excuse. Considering the historical practices of soldiers venturing out for women or men while in service (vietnam for example and Germany) to which were delt with by military authorities, folks are worried about gays who just want to serve?

Trust me the slackness crosses party and ideological lines on the matter. It has been 9 months since Obama assumed office, and yet this policy is still in place. Each day we extend this unconstitutional law against tax paying americans, we are telling the world that we accept discrimminating our own citizens while telling them to pay the military. Obama is being slack on this matter, him Pelosi, Reed and ofcourse the Republicans... I dont think I need to explain the Republicans! But its all probably for show ofcourse and its a damn shame. Its a shame. Maybe Obama will take it down in his term, but each day we leave it aside, we are tolerating an unacceptable message we are sending to some of our tax paying citizens who only wish to serve their nation freely.

And ofcourse the great constitutional messiah we call Ron Paul had a comment over the matter:

I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, it's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem..

outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com...

The current policy is a "decent policy"? How the hell can it be decent if the message is "pay taxes but shut up about who you freely choose to be". Are you serious? Ofcourse heterosexuals and homosexuals are imperfect, and thats when we have military authorities deal with this imperfection. Telling homosexuals they cant be who they are in the military because "they are imperfect" is unacceptable. Dont ask dont tell doesnt stop "homosexuals" anymore than "straight" individuals from committing acts against military rules. The only way to deal with unrestrained behaviour is to allow the military authorities to deal with. "Dont ask dont tell" however is just a policy that has no use other than to discrimminate against gays.

I know that this policy will be dismantled in time, and I know how negatively history will look back at this policy. However so long as it continues to exist for now, it continues to be a problem. I know there are fellow ATSers who always may feel passionatly about the issue so I would like to get some views over the policy and how on earth it is acceptable..... or why government members have continued to keep shut.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:16 AM by stevegmu

You still haven't explained how it is unconstitutional. It was actually passed by President Clinton to protect homosexuals in the military. Prior to passage, open homosexuals were barred from service.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:31 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by stevegmu
You still haven't explained how it is unconstitutional.

Actually I did. The constitution protects the rights of american citizens to follow which ever identity or belief or lifestyle they wish. The constitution protects the rights of adults to go about their lifestyles. Considering the fact the military serves the constitution, considering tax paying americans of all beliefs and lifestyles are paying and funding the military, it is unconstitutional to barr the from serving simply over lifestyle.

It was actually passed by President Clinton

I never argued this was restricted to ideological and party lines, infact I made that clear in the OP that Im sure you would have noticed if you actually read it through. Passed by Clinton, with the full backing of the republican majority congress and "christian conservative organisations" so Im pritty darn sure the fault lies across lines.

to protect homosexuals in the military.

How do you protect an individual from stripping their rights? If a homosexual didnt want to reveal his lifestyle to anybody he or she would by all means have the ability to do so himself. There is no reason forcing other people to do so as well. Some people are proud to freely be who they want to be and for years the US military has fought to preserve that very freedom. Yet ironically theres this policy in place that completely contradicts the duty of the military.

Prior to passage, open homosexuals were barred from service.

And it still hasnt changed.

SG

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:33 AM by jd140

Originally posted by stevegmu
You still haven't explained how it is unconstitutional. It was actually passed by President Clinton to protect homosexuals in the military. Prior to passage, open homosexuals were barred from service.

Let them get rid of the policy.

Once its gone they will see why it was in place.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:37 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jd140
Let them get rid of the policy.

Once its gone they will see why it was in place.

That everybody will have their freedoms to be given to them? Heavens forbid.

politifact.com...

Other western nations have dismantled their "dont ask dont tell" policy, Im pritty sure you'll be able to get the results there.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:39 AM by stevegmu

reply to post by Southern Guardian

They aren't banned from being gay, just openly gay- just as heterosexual couples in the military dare not have sex in public places on base. It is for their protection, so homosexuals don't get soap and towel parties. Have you ever been in a head or shower room in a military barracks? Not a lot of privacy there, which means openly gay members would have to have their own heads and shower rooms.

President Clinton signed the bill. Blaming Republicans and the Christian Right doesn't take away responsibility from the President who made it a law.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:42 AM by ashnomadonte

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I don't have an issue with gay people in the military. I know a couple that is out right gay like in your face with it

and because of this I have seen why that policy continues. I would not want to be the first open and out guy in the infantry god help that brave soul! Listen you condemn the policy because you more than likely have never served as an infantryman nether have I for that matter however, I have served with the infantry and the gay lifestyle is incompatible with the infantry mind set. At least that is my observation.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:43 AM by jd140

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jd140
Let them get rid of the policy.

Once its gone they will see why it was in place.

That everybody will have the freedom to live the lifestyle they want? Goodness forbid.

Spoken like someone who has never polished a pair of jungle boots.

Its easy to look at something from the outside and gripe about it. Its something completely differant when you are looking at the situation from the inside.

But it is easier to gripe about something that you have only read about.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:49 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Southern Guardian

They aren't banned from being gay, just openly gay

So your essentially saying that nobody is "barring them from being gay", they just shouldnt say they are? Does that make sense to you steve? Honestly?

just as heterosexual couples in the military dare not have sex in public places on base.

So your saying homosexual individuals are incapable of controlling themselves as heterosexual individuals are? I am aware of the codes regarding "relationships" but I dont see heterosexual individuals get told what they can and cant identify as. Its a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of identity.

It is for their protection,

Again with this excuse?? So your essentially saying gays cant choose whether they wish to identify or not? So there for others must keep shut as well? I already replied to this comment of yours.

so homosexuals don't get soap and towel parties.

Because goodness knows all homosexuals are sexual addicts who are more incapable than heterosexuals. What are generalization.

President Clinton signed the bill.

Why are you again arguing what ideological figures were involved? I never attributed this law to any single ideology or party, why do you continue to do so? And in addition to that having to argue in defense of the policy why do you continue to blame clinton?

Blaming Republicans and the Christian Right doesn't take away responsibility from the President who made it a law.

I didny single out republicans and "christian rightwingers" liar. My comment is right there above and you willfully chose to ignore what I was actually saying and accuse me of something else. Here was my original comment:

Passed by Clinton, with the full backing of the republican majority congress and "christian conservative organisations

Nowhere did I excuse clinton or single out Republicans and conservatives. I didnt in that comment, I didnt in my OP.

SG

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:56 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jd140
Spoken like someone who has never polished a pair of jungle boots.

I'll happily wear jungle boots to preserve somebody elses constitutional rights the military supposedly is suppose to defend. Im sure theres a pair somewhere for you to wear aswell.

Its easy to look at something from the outside and gripe about it.

Its so easy for me to gripe about the constitutional rights of american citizens? Damn straight its an easy choice for me.

But it is easier to gripe about something that you have only read about.

So your saying theres nothing more to understand about a policy that tells certain americans they are not accepted because of their god given constitutional right? Please Jd140, explain further to us here.

And by the way, Im happy you decided to bring yourself together and take off that ignore. Hopefully this time you won't run away from debate.

SG

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:01 AM by stevegmu

reply to post by Southern Guardian

They shouldn't tie their shirts in a knot at the belly and wear chaps with nothing else on. That is correct. If asked, they should not say they are. It is for their protection.

Just because you think something violates your interpretation of the Constitution doesn't make it so.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:04 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by stevegmu
They shouldn't tie their shirts in a knot at the belly and wear chaps with nothing else on.

Essentially Steve your telling us here this policy is justified because of your own stereotypical views of homosexuals. A shame but Im not surprised.

That is correct. If asked, they should not say they are. It is for their protection.

Just because you think something violates your interpretation of the Constitution

So your saying its not any americans constitutional right be gay? What a revelation! Please explain to us where and why, and cite how the 14th ammendment referenced above backs up your statement.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:04 AM by ashnomadonte

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Congressional Statute Authorizing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 – § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654).

§ 654. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings – Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Link
As you can see here that the policy is well within the realm on constitutional.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:06 AM by jd140

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Actually you have been off the list for a while now, I have just read your usual drivel and ignored it.

Explaining something like this to someone it wouldn't affect is like someone telling you what sex feels like.

It won't work, its just something you have to experiance for yourself. Why don't you drive to your nearest recruiter, sign up and then give us your two cents worth on the subject.

Frankly, you are talking about something that will never affect you and to be honest, until it does, your opinion isn't worth the time it takes me to type this post.

Join up, lace your boots and then I will debate you on this issue. Until then there is no debate.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:12 AM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by ashnomadonte

How can it not be unconstitutional? You referenced me the same p*ss poor excuse of a bill passed by clinton, the dems and the republicans to justify what was really an unconstitutional law.

Essentially your defending the mentality in which it would be justified to bar women and minorities from serving the military as well. Is that what you would accept as well? Is this the constitutional defending military? That ruling that you linked me to is an ammendment in 1993 and just because congress ruled on it, doesnt mean it was constitutional.

Congress passed many unconstitutional rulings such as racial and gender segregation and over time and used excuses to justify them, but those rulings were eventually dismissed over their conflicts with the standing of the constitution. So no, I dont think that link justifies it, it was a p*ss poor attempt by clinton and congress to justify what was really an unconstitutional law back in 1993. It doesnt support the original contents of the constitution.

The military serves this country and defense the constitutional document, and yet this policy is the very opposite to the military.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:18 AM by ashnomadonte

reply to post by Southern Guardian

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

that sums it up in one neat sentence congress can make up whatever rules it wants in regards to joining the military or rules there of as there is no right to serve in the armed forces it is therefore a privilege forwarded by congress. Just like having a drivers license taken away for dui I like driving while drunk it makes me happy it is a life choice but sadly if I get caught I go to jail and loose my license.

(I do not actually like driving drunk. it was an example)

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:21 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jd140
Actually you have been off the list for a while now,

Well I think thats good. Welcome back!

Explaining something like this

Come on explain to us. What, are you afraid I am going to mark you out as anti-homosexual? Are you anti-homosexual? Or is there a legit reason you would like to share? Why hold it back??

It won't work, its just something you have to experiance for yourself.

What experience? You say it wont work? Have you had a personal negative experience with a homosexual person to believe this? Whats to stop the reality of both straight and gay soldiers from breaking the rules? All "dont ask dont tell" does is to tell gays they cant say who they really are, but whats to stop them or straights in the army from breaking army code? Dont ask dont tell isnt just unconstitutional, its useless in its intended workings.

Frankly, you are talking about something

I am talking about something and Im waiting for you to talk about something. Hows about you explain it? Why do you personally support it? What personal experiences do you have to support this policies continuation??

SG

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:23 AM by stevegmu

reply to post by Southern Guardian

If it were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have overturned it.
If someone is a fat slob, fails the ASVAB and is rejected for service, were their Constitutional rights violated?

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 02:25 AM by Southern Guardian