DADT on Shaky Ground
Here's a quick post for a Friday afternoon. We'll see how things shake out in the next administration:
I think Don't Ask Don't Tell was probably a step in the right direction at the time. The law, introduced in 1993, let gay and lesbian individuals serve in the military as long as they kept their sexual orientation quiet. Before that time, they couldn't serve at all. Over the years, however, mores have changed, people don't care if you're gay any more, and it's time to go ahead and treat people as people. DADT was better than an all-out ban, it is not better than equal treatment. It is time to get rid of it, and it appears that this ruling makes that goal easier to attain.
A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reconsider a ruling that raised doubts about the constitutionality of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military, a decision that could give President-elect Barack Obama a chance to act quickly on his promise to repeal the policy.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied the Air Force's request for a rehearing of a May 21 decision reviving a suit by a female officer in Washington state who was discharged because she had a relationship with another woman.
The three-judge panel in that decision said the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling overturning state laws against gay sex established a new level of constitutional protection for gays and lesbians. Under that standard, the appeals court said, the military can't automatically discharge all openly gay soldiers, but must prove in each case that dismissal would promote troop readiness or unit cohesion. Court's ruling stands on 'don't ask' doubts
I think Don't Ask Don't Tell was probably a step in the right direction at the time. The law, introduced in 1993, let gay and lesbian individuals serve in the military as long as they kept their sexual orientation quiet. Before that time, they couldn't serve at all. Over the years, however, mores have changed, people don't care if you're gay any more, and it's time to go ahead and treat people as people. DADT was better than an all-out ban, it is not better than equal treatment. It is time to get rid of it, and it appears that this ruling makes that goal easier to attain.
posted by JimK at 1:39 PM
8 Comments:
The U.S. has always been a lagard when it comes to human rights. It was slow to abolish slavery, anti-miscegnation laws, criminalization of gay sex (almost 40 years after Canada), the ban on gays in the military and now it has refused to sign a U.N. resolution calling for global decriminalization of gayness. Many countries around the world imprison or execute gays. A resolution has been put forward to stop this barbarousness and in an outrageous display of hate the global leader of Christianity at the Vatican has opposed this under the absurd idea that if gays aren't imprisoned and executed people will look down on Christians. How insane is that - "if governments don't imprison and murder gays us christians will look bad when we call gays immoral" - could Christianity look any more immoral and selfish?!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9763.html
Unlike moral countries the U.S. has refused to sign on to this commonsense idea of justice, once again being a latecomer to justice and morality all the while spouting the false rhetoric of its own "moral" leadership on the global stage.
It's worth noting that the official military policy isn't really don't ask don't tell. Members of the service are discharged in an investigation shows that they are lgbt, regardless of what they actually say. The only step forward was that recruits were no longer explicitly asked if they were gay. I personally think Bill threw us under the bus with this one, as he did with the DOMA.
"It was slow to abolish slavery, anti-miscegnation laws, criminalization of gay sex (almost 40 years after Canada), the ban on gays in the military and now it has refused to sign a U.N. resolution calling for global decriminalization of gayness."
The U.S. has also refused to condemn the horror of parking meters.
Like the way this extremist anti-U.S. radical tosses in laws against sexual deviance with slavery.
It's called insanity.
I thought gays would tend to fantasize about being arrested and thrown into a cell with another member of their own gender who can't get away. Now, they're complaining about such treatment.
Go figure.
Thanks for going on record bad anonymous stating that you support imprisoning and executing people that have harmed no one. It demonstrates what sort of "morality" you got from your Islamic-Christian religion - not a big surprise once you read the bible.
"Thanks for going on record bad anonymous stating that you support imprisoning and executing people that have harmed no one."
I supported neither.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills.
"It demonstrates what sort of "morality" you got from your Islamic-Christian religion"
A new kick from an old nut. Christianity and Islam aren't the same religion.
You're insane.
It's kind of funny how Priya is against jailing gays and meanwhile Duchy is trying to set up a home to lock them away.
Isn't life strange?
A change of the pace?
“A change of the pace?”
General Peter Pace: "My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct, that are immoral. ... I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," he said.
A typical example of anti-gay buffoonery, this time in military fashion.
Here we have a military commander, testifying before the United States Congress, who believes that “homosexual acts,” in and of themselves, are a “moral” issue, and further, that these beliefs should be considered to be legitimate because they were a result of his “upbringing.”
This is the type of person who should be banned from military service. Someone who not only cannot tell the difference between a relationship, and an issue of right and wrong, but who also considers one’s “upbringing” as a legitimate reason to maintain such an arbitrary position.
He went so far as to claim that same-sex sex within barracks would be a problem, as though that would be a different problem than ANY sex in a barracks.
The bias and hatred shines through, loud and clear, when it comes to the “reasons” why LGBT citizens should not be allowed to protect and serve their own country.
Clinton should have signed an executive order instead of implementing DADT. It would have been over and done with, just like with Massachusetts.
No doubt that diehard anti-gay Americans would prefer annual 9/11’s to that prospect, but at that point, their own open anti-Americanism would at least be shown for the selfishness and hatred that it is - and just where their “morality” lies when it comes to the protection of all American citizens.
Bad anonymous said "I supported neither.".
You supported both indirectly by pooh-poohing the imprisonment and execution of gays by comparing it to "the horror of parking meters". Your trivialization of such outrages demonstrates your hatred of gays and support for their oppression.
Bad anonymous said "Christianity and Islam aren't the same religion.".
Just as much the same religion as the "judeo-christian" one you oft refer to. Islam and Christianity both worship the god of Abraham, you both support the oppression of gays. Jews are much more supportive of gays, your religon has far more in common with Islam than Judaism.
Post a Comment
<< Home