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.

 

Federal Judge Rules Military's Gay Ban Unconstitutional

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Federal Judge Rules Military's Gay Ban Unconstitutional


www.foxnews.com

RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.

Phillips says the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to rep
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I have always said that not only is the homo-ban silly, but also unConstitutional. Now, it appears as if a federal judge agrees. Hopefully, gay military members will be able to come out and live their lives openly, just like the rest of us. After all, they are heroes just trying to do the right thing.

I happened to have served with at least a couple gay people (that I know of) and they were just as dedicated and just as hard-working as everyone else. They were my brothers and it didn't affect their job performance or even respect from other soldiers. For the most part, soldiers don't care who you choose to sleep with when off duty, so long as you pull your own weight and soldier on like the rest of us.

I have always thought we were so far behind in the times by banning gay people from serving their country and now it will change, hopefully.

--airspoon

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 9-9-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Guuurrrr! You beat me to it! Congrats. Again this judge is the greatest to sign a law into order.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Guuurrrr! You beat me to it! Congrats. Again this judge is the greatest to sign a law into order.


In full agreement with you, hoping this will stand and those were drummed out will be reinstated if that is what they want.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I want to take a moment to applaud a rare positive step in the direction of this country. It isn't often that this judge rules on controversial subjects in a manner that i agree with.

But this isn't the end of it all. The military, as an institution, is incredibly powerful. They have the guns, after all.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
This may be the first step in a very long road. The problem that many people fail to realize is that the US military serve and live under a different set of laws and rules than the rest of the country. Even though they may state that those who are gay may serve in the military,however, it will not make a difference, until the UCMJ, the military set of rules or laws that govern the conduct of all military personell are updated will it start to become reality. So they remove this law, to make it easier that someone who is gay to openly serve, however, what to do when they are off duty and want to go out and enjoy themselves, then they can still be held accountable under the UCMJ for their actions and booted out alot easier. Then there is the other aspect of what to do when you have 2 people of the same gender in a committed relationship, how to handle that, and alot of other issues that are not even to begin to cover that. I would say first to update the UCMJ, and the military conduct, then to remove the restraints so it can slowly progress into a more unified force.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This is great news. There was really no reason for it in the first place. I just hope any challenges to it stand (I don't know if it can be taken to the Supreme Court.)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by akeetlebeetle
 


It can always be taken to the Supreme Court, so long as they accept the case if it is brought to them. I'm sure that this case would be accepted if it is challenged that far. However, I think the days are numbered for "don't ask, don't tell", regardless of this court case.


--airspoon



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Howdy Folks,

Sad that it took a shortage of meat for the battlfield to bring this full circle.

Nevertheless, Yeah For The Gay!!

Any time is a good time for equality.

magpie



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Its about time. There are many patriotic americans out there willing to and have risked their lives to serve this country so why should some of them be punished for this merely over their personal preferences? This was long overdue and its another step forward to progress.


In my time arguing against this ban on homosexuals in the military not one supporter of it has given me reasonable argument against it, aside from insisting that all gays are sexually hyper active. I don't know where that sort of ignorance comes from? Maybe arrogance? Don't know. Hopefully many of those men and women removed from the services will be offered their places back.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


What young soldier isn't sexually hyperactive? Lol, I think that charge has already been fulfilled by the heterosexuals. With that being said, I think the main argument against homosexuals in the military is that it will disrupt unit cohesion and spark sexual harassment, in form. Take for instance both the barracks and showers. The argument is that male soldiers wouldn't want to be in the showers naked next to some guy who seems to be aroused at your presence or the bunk for that matter. Also, in the field when it's cold, bone chillingly so, you strip buck-naked with your buddies and sleep in the fart sack together to benefit from each other's body heat. Because you are literally only as good as your weakest link, such a scenario could endanger the the whole unit for a plethora of different reasons,.

The theory is that in such a scenario, soldiers would dissent if there was a flaming homosexual, drooling from the mouth and poking you in the back. However, in reality if you are stuck in a situation like that, the last thing you are going to be worrying about is whether your buddy is excited or not. Another thing that dispels such a notion, is that you know the men in your squad, platoon and company like you know your own family, sometimes even better. You train together, eat together, party together and even go through hell together. Not only that, but our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are all highly trained professionals (most of us anyway) and behavior like that stated above is only indicative of amateurs. So, while on paper the argument seems valid, in reality it holds no water (at least for the vast majority of the time).

Will it happen? Absolutely (on as exceptions, not the rule) and that's almost a guarantee (it even happens with heterosexuals), though soldiers adapt and overcome. I think that it will, for the most part, only affect trainees, novices, cadets and those going through their initial training to where they lack the professionalism indicative of a soldier. With that being said, stepping outside of your comfort zone and dealing with "demons" that you don't want to deal with, adapting and overcoming, is part of being a soldier, sailor, marine or airman.

I think that the biggest advocates for the ban, are the civilian leadership and the portion of the public who has never served. This is a group of people who wouldn't be affected anyway and so they are irrelevant to the over-all equation. You know, on paper a lot of things seems to make sense, though reality always seems to be a little different. We should always air on the side of "right", "equal" and "fair" and make adjustments to accommodate accordingly. After all freedom, liberty and justice does have a price and that price is to make said adjustments and deal with the consequences as they come.


--airspoon



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I have always said that not only is the homo-ban silly,
gay military members will be able to come out and live their lives openly,

I remember watching Ally Macbeal, I'm sure I mispelled that... I thought the actress was hot.. skinny.. but hot!
They had a unisex bathroom in that show, in the workplace, I think it was a law firm.
I thought that was odd and my wife was saying she wouldn't want to work there.

If you are pro don't ask don't tell you first must have a solution!
First and foremost you MUST have a solution
What about the troops going to the shower room, bathroom and all that stuff in front of gay men?

What about freedom? What about freedom of choice?
What if a enlisted soldier signed up for the army a year ago and must now share showerrooms with gay people?
Whether you think that's stupid or not is irrelevant, you must have a solution for this soldier before you advocate don't ask don't tell.

Otherwise it's no different than a man dressing up like a woman and enlisting as a woman so he can share rooms with women.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


In my opinion this comment is silly and uninformed.

If you support the repeal of DADT, you do not have to have a solution. Your stance is equal rights. When (not if) DADT ceases to exist, it is the responsibility of the military (and the law, via the judge(s) will ensure this) to enact the solution, which is not only eliminating DADT, but likely, enacting policies to eliminate any demonstrable discrimination relating to an individual's sexual preference.

Members in the military have been showering with homosexual (and bisexual, transgendered, asexual, etc.) colleagues since the creation of American armed forces (and globally, since the very first organized military was ever created). The repeal of DADT has nothing to do with showers. Men will continue to shower with other men. For those members of the military who have a problem showering with other men, I suspect, they will either tough it out (just like racist people tough out their hatred of different colored skin tones) ... or else refrain from joining the military. The purpose of the military will no longer be to facilitate attitudes of ignorance and discrimination.

Concerns about freedom were what initiated DADT when it was created. Now its elimination furthers the cause. Dropping DADT takes no one's rights away. On the contrary, it institutionalizes the rights people were supposed to already have. Any rights/protection that (especially heterosexual) people feel they have lost because of the repeal of DADT is actually not lost protection, but is better labeled hatred, ignorance or homophobia.

The government and the military will not be concerned about the straight men who signed up before who must now deal with the repeal of DADT. Why would it matter? You showered with gay men a week ago. And you will shower with them tomorrow. How does a judicial act change the parameters of those showers? The straight men and women were straight before. The gay men and women were gay before. The judge did not indicate anywhere in her ruling that straight men or women were now required to be sexually receptive to salivating, horned up homos. Please.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


You know I would counter what you said but considering you apparently aren't aware of the differences between "pro" and "con"....I don't think there is much point.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I am sure you are more informed regarding the military code of justice than I am (because i know next to nothing about it). However, my understanding is that though the UCMJ covers the military, it is an act of the federal government, as was DADT. The repeal of DADT by a federal judge, particularly with the ruling of the policy as unconstitutional, will surely and immediately be incorporated within the UCMJ.

The plaintiffs in this particular case have already indicated that the recommendations requested by the judge will be provided to her on Monday (9/13/10) and are to be followed, I believe, by only ten days of deliberation. Following this (and without a federal appeal, which is unlikely, but possible), the judge's recommendations will immediately go into effect and are likely to include an immediate halt to any investigations, prosecutions, processes or any administrative and punitive issues in action as a result of DADT.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 

The UCMJ, Uniform code of Military Justice, is the law that governs the conduct of those who serve in the United States Armed Forces. There are provisions in the UCMJ that often conflicts with the local laws, thus armed service members are told what those are. There is also a provision in that set of Laws, which superceeds the local and state laws. The best example is this: A soldier rapes a woman and gets caught. If the UCMJ provides a harsher sentence, then the soldier is taken into custody of the military police and is put infront of the court marshal board and sentenced. If the civillian law is harsher, then he is left in the care of the civillian authority, then get punished, and after he gets out of jail, is returned to the military authority and suffers further punishment. The military is under a stricter codes and guidelines than their counterparts that are not in the military service.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Gays and bisexuals have been allowed to serve openly in the UK armed forces since 2000, but it should have been sooner. Concerns about bullying, discrimination and infighting due to openly gay servicemen/women have not materialised. Gays operate just as well as everyone else.

In fact Mike Calvert was openly gay, he was the commander of the Malayan Scouts and a founding father of the modern SAS, one of the toughest men ever to walk the earth. That was back in the 50s and no-one could care less about his sexual preference, they knew that he was more of a man than any of them and that he wasn't going to roger them in the middle of a firefight. Why it took another 50 years to allow gays to serve openly I don't know.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


I agree. Believe it or not, there are many openly gay folks in the US military too. Really, it is all dependent on your fellow soldiers whether it is a strike against you and you go home or not. I happened to serve with at least two openly gay guys and you would have never known that they either was gay just by "knowing" them. However, because you are so close with the brothers around you, you know who likes bacon and who likes pork. Never once was their sexuality an issue... at all.

Remember, one of the greatest military tacticians to ever grace the face of this planet was gay and he forged an empire that shaped the world we know today. His name is Alexander the Great and he was one of the best soldiers that world has ever seen.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Yep you’d soon regret calling Alex a fairy


I may have served alongside gays but it simply isn’t relevant, and as you said they don’t all tend to flutter their eyelashes at you or prance around so I don’t think I’d ever find out. If anyone came out it wouldn’t change my opinion of them in the slightest.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join