National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service

[Phenia]

*sigh*

Can you not understand the difference between applying for military service and being exterminated in gas chambers? They are two completely different situations in two completely different times.

How does your argument, full of such gems as 'The Law has that right' or 'There is no recourse,' NOT apply to ANY law? How can you go from making such grandiose, absolute statements and then immediately hedge and say they only apply to this one modern situation in this particular country on this particular issue?

I am not saying that being denied military service is the same as being exterminated in gas chambers. I am saying your argument just as easily defends one bigoted, gross injustice as the other. That is to say, it doesn't really defend anything successfully, it's just a weak rationalization.

[The Cat-Tribe]

This "the law is the law" argument ignores that the Constitution is the supreme law and the way laws get declared unconstitutional is by people challenging them.

As to the "right" of the military to do what it wants with soldiers, Justice O'Connor wrote in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 531 (O'Connor, J., dissenting)*:

There is no reason why these general principles should not apply in the military, as well as the civilian, context. As this Court has stated unanimously, "`our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes.'" Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 304 (1983) (quoting Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 181, 188 (1962)). Furthermore, the test that one can glean from this Court's decisions in the civilian context is sufficiently flexible to take into account the special importance of defending our Nation without abandoning completely the freedoms that make it worth defending.

*TSI appears to hang his legal hat on the Court's decision in Goldman. A single 5-4 decision by SCOTUS hardly settles an issue for all time -- especially when the analyses of the Justices was all over the place. Regardless, Congress overrode the outcome in Goldman by statute.

[The South Islands]

*sigh*

Can you not understand the difference between applying for military service and being exterminated in gas chambers? They are two completely different situations in two completely different times.

How does your argument, full of such gems as 'The Law has that right' or 'There is no recourse,' NOT apply to ANY law? How can you go from making such grandiose, absolute statements and then immediately hedge and say they only apply to this one modern situation in this particular country on this particular issue?

I am not saying that being denied military service is the same as being exterminated in gas chambers. I am saying your argument just as easily defends one bigoted, gross injustice as the other. That is to say, it doesn't really defend anything successfully, it's just a weak rationalization.

The fundamental difference is the fact that the gays in the military (past and present) volunteered to subject themselves to the UCMJ and, in effect, lose some of their constitutionally protected rights. They signed this contract. They agreed to it. The same cannot be said for the other situation.

Furthermore, what does this have to do with reality of the present policy. The Supreme Court has ruled that the military can infringe on otherwise protected constitutional rights in the interest of conformity essentially at will. No amount of bitching is going to change that.

EDIT: Yes, the Weinberger ruling is very key here. Despite the narrow majority, it is, as of now, the position the Supreme Court has taken. Perhaps a gay military man (or woman) will challenge DADT on constitutional grounds, and perhaps Weinberger will be overruled. But as of now, it is part of the legal podium that DADT and a host of other otherwise unconstitutional military regulations stand on. As of now, I don't feel especially unsteady relying on a Supreme Court decision.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the military can infringe on otherwise protected constitutional rights in the interest of conformity essentially at will. No amount of bitching is going to change that.

That isn't what SCOTUS ruled in Goldman, or in any other case. Thanks for removing any doubt that you knew what you were talking about.

[Enadail]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the military can infringe on otherwise protected constitutional rights in the interest of conformity essentially at will. No amount of bitching is going to change that.

That isn't what SCOTUS ruled in Goldman, or in any other case. Thanks for removing any doubt that you knew what you were talking about.

Um... I just read Goldman v. Weinberger at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 03_ZO.html and that's most definitely what it says. I point you to the last paragraph.

But whether or not expert witnesses may feel that religious exceptions to AFR 35-10 are desirable is quite beside the point. The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment. Quite obviously, to the extent the regulations do not permit the wearing of religious apparel such as a yarmulke, a practice described by petitioner as silent devotion akin to prayer, military life may be more objectionable for petitioner and probably others. But the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate [p510] such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and we hold that those portions of the regulations challenged here reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the military's perceived need for uniformity. The First Amendment therefore does not prohibit them from being applied to petitioner, even though their effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs.

Quite clearly, its stating that the First Amendment rights may be overturned when reasonable by the military, and sets precedence for other cases.

[Blouman Empire]

This "the law is the law" argument ignores that the Constitution is the supreme law and the way laws get declared unconstitutional is by people challenging them.

So why hasn't it being ruled unconstitutional yet? It has only been 15 years.

And yes it is policy of the army and as such the tribunal had to follow policy regardless of what they thought of the matter.

Despite all that even if it is policy or law shouldn't mean that it doesn't get to be challenged.

[Ryadn]

If the "workplace policy" of the U.S. military, was that one is not allowed to engage in religious acts, declare one's religion, or get married in a religious ceremony, would you support it or might it be counter to the Constitution and/or American values?

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities that would not be allowed in any other workplace. Many regulations (thinking specifically of Article 134) are counter to American values/the Constitution.

Think before you type. If the military had the equivalent of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning any and/or all religion, would that be acceptable, Constitutional, and/or moral?

I tried that question five pages ago. I was told they're "different things."

[The Cat-Tribe]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the military can infringe on otherwise protected constitutional rights in the interest of conformity essentially at will. No amount of bitching is going to change that.

That isn't what SCOTUS ruled in Goldman, or in any other case. Thanks for removing any doubt that you knew what you were talking about.

Um... I just read Goldman v. Weinberger at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 03_ZO.html and that's most definitely what it says. I point you to the last paragraph.

But whether or not expert witnesses may feel that religious exceptions to AFR 35-10 are desirable is quite beside the point. The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment. Quite obviously, to the extent the regulations do not permit the wearing of religious apparel such as a yarmulke, a practice described by petitioner as silent devotion akin to prayer, military life may be more objectionable for petitioner and probably others. But the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate [p510] such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and we hold that those portions of the regulations challenged here reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the military's perceived need for uniformity. The First Amendment therefore does not prohibit them from being applied to petitioner, even though their effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs.

Quite clearly, its stating that the First Amendment rights may be overturned when reasonable by the military, and sets precedence for other cases.

Um.

1. Please point out where the Court (either in the portion you quote or elsewhere in Goldman) said anything close to "the military can infringe on otherwise protected constitutional rights in the interest of conformity essentially at will."

2. Your own summary of the case -- that First Amendment rights MAY be overturned when REASONABLE by the military--contradicts what TSI said the case held.

[Enadail]

Um... I just read Goldman v. Weinberger at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 03_ZO.html and that's most definitely what it says. I point you to the last paragraph.

But whether or not expert witnesses may feel that religious exceptions to AFR 35-10 are desirable is quite beside the point. The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment. Quite obviously, to the extent the regulations do not permit the wearing of religious apparel such as a yarmulke, a practice described by petitioner as silent devotion akin to prayer, military life may be more objectionable for petitioner and probably others. But the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate [p510] such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and we hold that those portions of the regulations challenged here reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the military's perceived need for uniformity. The First Amendment therefore does not prohibit them from being applied to petitioner, even though their effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs.

Quite clearly, its stating that the First Amendment rights may be overturned when reasonable by the military, and sets precedence for other cases.

Um.

1. Please point out where the Court (either in the portion you quote or elsewhere in Goldman) said anything close to "the military can infringe on otherwise protected constitutional rights in the interest of conformity essentially at will."

2. Your own summary of the case -- that First Amendment rights MAY be overturned when REASONABLE by the military--contradicts what TSI said the case held.

And I pull this right out of the statement...

But the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate [p510] such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and we hold that those portions of the regulations challenged here reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the military's perceived need for uniformity.

And I would disagree that it contradicts. It might not jive 100%, but... This case talks about the First Amendment, but like any court decision, it provides precedent for future cases, in this case, that an Amendment may be ignored for the sake of uniformity. And given that the military does not have to pass its guidelines/rules/etc by Congress, I would say that it qualifies as "at (its) whim". I'm not gonna say every case would end up siding with military, but the precedent is there. Essentially, the military can infringe on otherwise constitutional rights for the sake of uniformity, when it deems fit.

[Daynor]

If I saw a study or a poll that confirmed that soldiers had less respect or trust toward a gay officer or soldiers, then I'd have no problem with don't ask don't tell. I havn't however... so...

Anyway, it's a very minor issue...

[Enadail]

Anyway, it's a very minor issue...

I disagree, its a very major issue. Its discrimination and we're loosing good, valuable soldiers for no reason. Thus is a very major issue.

[Tamni Vilajet]

This is a problem which can be percieved from the two angles: as a question of human rights in the military institutions and as a utilitarian question.
The first approach can have people arguing pro or against gay people in military declaring their sexuality (dough I can't image how can it be concealed if one is married), and what means declaring it exactly. Does it mens that they are not allowed to declare it in the off time while serving. Is a posting your sexual orientation online someplace not allowed?
For me it means denaying sevicmen their basic human rights. If that would be a question anywhere in the private sector or public one for that matter, the employer would get its pants sued off.
But the U.S. Military claims that they need to limit those rights in order to preserve 'combat cohesion' - a fancy word for unit morale.
Which is an utilitarian argument, and it brings us at a second approach. That argument would be fine if it was true. But it needs to be backed-up by substantial research conducted by inedpendent social researchers in order to be accepeted as valid, otherwise it is nothing but a thinnley veiled homophobia.
Homosexuality has been an integral part of militarys and warfare throught history with notable leaders and generals being known as gay and not losing a bit of respect from thir troops, even in the societies that didnt normaly aprove of such behaviour. Not to mention a common troops geting bored in the kassarnen or in the long deployments and a fact that kind of behavior actually forms closer bonds beetwen men in the same units. Thats precisesely the reason the thebans made their sacred band (based on the spartan role-model).
Besides, I seriously doubt that anyone angaged in real combat gives a rat's ass if the guy next to him likes anal sex with his wife or some bloke he meet in the gey club if he can shoot straight and keep his mates alive.
It is only men with some free time on their hands and lack of more pressing concerns, who are going to bother about next guy's sexual preferences. And it falls on the officers and NCO's to limit that kind of behavioural dissonances and intill discipline.
Considering the current recruiting difficulties U.S.Armed Forces face it is outright foolish to drive othervise perfectly good soliders away because of their sexual preferences while being forced to lower recruting standards for others and forcing reseve soliders to stay deployed overtime. It amounts to sheer arogance and incompetence at the strategic level to continue this policy, not to mention moral problems inherent to it.

[Kirchensittenbach]

great system, all the rule asks is that gays STFU about their personal life, yet they just cant, and lose their career because of it

what is so hard about keeping private facts private, are gays THAT outrageous that they lost their ability to keep secrets at the same time they lost their heterosexuality

[Longhaul]

what is so hard about keeping private facts private, are gays THAT outrageous that they lost their ability to keep secrets at the same time they lost their heterosexuality

This seems to indicate a belief that everyone starts out being heterosexual which is, to put it mildly, contentious.

DADT doesn't even appear to me to be a proper policy, but more like evading the issue. It's like a giant collective head in the sand, fingers in the ears and singing la-la-la and hoping that by 'officially' ignoring the issue it might just go away. It won't.

Just as is the case with the debates about same-sex marriages it all boils down to the desire of some to continue restricting the rights of certain sets of people whose lifestyles don't match their own, and I've yet to see any justification that holds up to scrutiny. The arguments against allowing openly homosexual people to serve in the military that we're seeing here are pretty much the same ones that I recall being spouted in this country 10 years ago, when the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled that the UK's ban on homosexuals in the military was unlawful, and they haven't become any more persuasive over time.

[Eofaerwic]

I can't believe people are still using the "it ruins morale" or "its bad for unit cohesion" arguments. Those same bullshit excuses were pulled out to ban women, to ban blacks, to ban pretty much any despised minority from serving in the military.

Even if it was true, I would say to those whose "morale" would be hurt if they knew a soldier was gay - suck it up, tough guy. If you're supposed to be defending the country, but are emotionally traumatized at the mere thought of homosexuality, you don't deserve to serve. It's that simple.

And the claim that it "disrupts cohesion" is just made-up crap anyway. The argument is not valid. It won't ever become valid through repetition. Just a FYI, South Islands.

And the evidence indicates that it won't affect unit cohesion at all: http://www.palmcenter.org/node/391. Because, would you believe it, US military personnel, like those in other countries, are professional enough to handle other people's sexuality like adults!

[Chumblywumbly]

Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

...

One cannot simply disregard a law because one believes it is unjust

On the contrary, I would say one has nigh-on a moral duty to disregard a law if one believes it to be unjust.

[Eofaerwic]

Just as is the case with the debates about same-sex marriages it all boils down to the desire of some to continue restricting the rights of certain sets of people whose lifestyles don't match their own, and I've yet to see any justification that holds up to scrutiny. The arguments against allowing openly homosexual people to serve in the military that we're seeing here are pretty much the same ones that I recall being spouted in this country 10 years ago, when the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled that the UK's ban on homosexuals in the military was unlawful, and they haven't become any more persuasive over time.

The armed forces have also done a complete U-turn since 2000 to the point that the Royal Navy and the RAF are currently in the list of Stonewall's top 100 employers when it comes to equality, all armed forces personnel are allowed to march in pride parades as part of their respective forces (though only the Navy I think allows them to actually do so in uniform) and the armed forces were pushing for equal spousal rights for gay service members about a year or two before civil partnerships came into law. The Navy and the RAF have been better than the army at this, but then the army is always a bit more on the reactionary side, however even the army is looking to sign up for Stonewall's diversity programme, has strict anti-homophobia policies and puts recruitment ads in gay/lesbian publications.

I believe an officer summed it up recently as "In years to come the top military brass will look back and wonder why the hell they spent so much time and effort trying to fight getting rid of the policy" (quote may not be word perfect). The change over was a non-issue and the integration of openly gay and lesbian service personnel has been a ressounding success. Although the military doesn't gather information on sexuality, information volunteered to the respect services LGBT support forums indicate that gay service personnel probably make up about 6-8% of service personnel (in proportion with the general population), with maybe slightly lower percentage among men and a somewhat higher percentage among women.

[Chumblywumbly]

Although the military doesn't gather information on sexuality, information volunteered to the respect services LGBT support forums indicate that gay service personnel probably make up about 6-8% of service personnel...

Now that's a welcome surprise.

[Dyakovo]

If they disagreed with the UCMJ, they certainly had the right not to enlist.

One might as well say, 'If the Jews disagreed with the Nuremberg Laws, they certainly had the right to leave Germany.'

A more accurate analogy would be "If the Jews disagreed with the Nuremberg Laws, they certainly had the right to not enter Germany.

In the US, military service is a privilege (for lack of a better term), not a right. However wrong DADT is, it is still law.

As above, 'However wrong the Nuremberg Laws are, they are still Law.'

Notice how it doesn't sound like a good justification when I use it? Yeah it doesn't sound like a good justification when you do either.

The point TSI is making is that the soldier was rightfully and legally discharged based on the rules currently in place.

[Capitalistliberals]

On the contrary, I would say one has nigh-on a moral duty to disregard a law if one believes it to be unjust.

same argument im making you have a right and duty to challenge unjust and immoral laws. the law is only the law if the citizens agree with the law. the State should not have the ability to control its citizens by just saying "its the law" as citizens of the State it is our duty to challenge policies we find un-just

[Maurepas]

On the contrary, I would say one has nigh-on a moral duty to disregard a law if one believes it to be unjust.

same argument im making you have a right and duty to challenge unjust and immoral laws. the law is only the law if the citizens agree with the law. the State should not have the ability to control its citizens by just saying "its the law" as citizens of the State it is our duty to challenge policies we find un-just

Continuing to Pirate Music since 2003,

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Just as is the case with the debates about same-sex marriages it all boils down to the desire of some to continue restricting the rights of certain sets of people whose lifestyles don't match their own, and I've yet to see any justification that holds up to scrutiny. The arguments against allowing openly homosexual people to serve in the military that we're seeing here are pretty much the same ones that I recall being spouted in this country 10 years ago, when the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled that the UK's ban on homosexuals in the military was unlawful, and they haven't become any more persuasive over time.

The armed forces have also done a complete U-turn since 2000 to the point that the Royal Navy and the RAF are currently in the list of Stonewall's top 100 employers when it comes to equality, all armed forces personnel are allowed to march in pride parades as part of their respective forces (though only the Navy I think allows them to actually do so in uniform) and the armed forces were pushing for equal spousal rights for gay service members about a year or two before civil partnerships came into law. The Navy and the RAF have been better than the army at this, but then the army is always a bit more on the reactionary side, however even the army is looking to sign up for Stonewall's diversity programme, has strict anti-homophobia policies and puts recruitment ads in gay/lesbian publications.

I believe an officer summed it up recently as "In years to come the top military brass will look back and wonder why the hell they spent so much time and effort trying to fight getting rid of the policy" (quote may not be word perfect). The change over was a non-issue and the integration of openly gay and lesbian service personnel has been a ressounding success. Although the military doesn't gather information on sexuality, information volunteered to the respect services LGBT support forums indicate that gay service personnel probably make up about 6-8% of service personnel (in proportion with the general population), with maybe slightly lower percentage among men and a somewhat higher percentage among women.

I wonder how the RAF handled the complete collapse of morale and discipline.

[Ryadn]

Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

...

One cannot simply disregard a law because one believes it is unjust

On the contrary, I would say one has nigh-on a moral duty to disregard a law if one believes it to be unjust.

Why does that sound so familiar? No, no, don't tell me, I'll think of it. I know some sort of radical trouble-making hippie said that before...

[Farnhamia]

Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

...

One cannot simply disregard a law because one believes it is unjust

On the contrary, I would say one has nigh-on a moral duty to disregard a law if one believes it to be unjust.

Why does that sound so familiar? No, no, don't tell me, I'll think of it. I know some sort of radical trouble-making hippie said that before...

You mean that Massachusetts pencil-maker?

[Greed and Death]

Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

...

One cannot simply disregard a law because one believes it is unjust

On the contrary, I would say one has nigh-on a moral duty to disregard a law if one believes it to be unjust.

No, morality is a means not an end.
One so morally disregard the law in order to change it.