It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Originally posted by jd140
Let them get rid of the policy.
Once its gone they will see why it was in place.
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.
Originally posted 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.
President Clinton signed the bill.
Passed by Clinton, with the full backing of the republican majority congress and "christian conservative organisations
Originally posted by jd140
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.
But it is easier to gripe about something that you have only read about.
Originally posted by stevegmu
They shouldn't tie their shirts in a knot at the belly and wear chaps with nothing else on.
Just because you think something violates your interpretation of the Constitution
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.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Originally posted by jd140
Actually you have been off the list for a while now,
Explaining something like this
It won't work, its just something you have to experiance for yourself.
Frankly, you are talking about something
Originally posted by ashnomadonte
that sums it up in one neat sentence
Originally posted by stevegmu
If it were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have overturned it.