Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

[The Parkus Empire]

The SSS isn't abolished, it still exists.

Shit, I never registered.

[Peddieville]

Your rights to free expression are limited when you join the military. For example, you can't stage a protest when ordered by your commanding officer to fall in. In the same way, you can't present yourself as a homosexual if your military branch orders you not to. The Constitution is such an ambiguous document, but what is sure is that 'gay rights' wasn't on the minds of the people who wrote the First Amendment in the late 18th century.

And neither were black rights. What's your point?

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is constitutional.

How so? If the military is going to limit freedom of expression, which I agree that in some cases, it may be able to, it better have a reason.

[Trippoli]

DADT is punishing people for free expression - it's contrary to the 1st Amendment. That's even ignoring questions about which other Constitutional articles are infringed.

It's hardly activism.

Your rights to free expression are limited when you join the military. For example, you can't stage a protest when ordered by your commanding officer to fall in. In the same way, you can't present yourself as a homosexual if your military branch orders you not to. The Constitution is such an ambiguous document, but what is sure is that 'gay rights' wasn't on the minds of the people who wrote the First Amendment in the late 18th century.

If they could already tell you were gay they would ban gays from the military altogether. This issue is a moral problem, it justs seems wrong, it's basically saying you're not capable of fight because you're gay. But the problem is they can't detect homosexuality. And, how does signing up for the military limit your rights again?

[The Corparation]

One of my soldiers was kicked out under don't ask don't tell.
He was a former eagle scout, and was one of the most technically competent soldiers on my sift.
the policy hurts readiness and security and may have cost lives on the front by removing better qualified soldiers form service.

If he was found out while he was in BSA he would of been kicked out too. BSA's a private organization so according to the courts they don't have to let in atheists, agnostics, or gays. Courts should go after BSA's policies too.

[SaintB]

More autocratic government by the courts under the premise of "constitutionality"; despite the fact that such decisions basically amount to the Court rewriting the Constitution to suit its views. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could possibly be construed as giving gays an unalienable right to serve openly in the military.

I fail to see how this entire thing is a problem. Nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuals can't serve in the armed forces, so the Religious Right has no real argument. Some homosexuals that were "outted" and discharged from the service were darn good soldiers (see greed and death's) post. This ruling isn't forcing gays to out themselves to join the military. We need more recruits. What is a drawback to this ruling? I can honestly not think of one.

How about the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution to actually justify it? Or the numerous arguments from actual members of the military that the presence of open homosexuals has the potential to disrupt unit cohesion and degrade the overall effectiveness of our forces.

I know entire platoons of soldiers who don't give a fucking shit and I live in a rather conservative area. Its the military, everyone is there for a job just like at work, it doesn't cause problems in the work force and it doesn't and won't cause problems in the armed forces, if there are problems its caused by the irrational fear and hatred of a small majority.

[Potarius]

but if I were a women

Would that mean you'd have two or more vaginae?

And two heads to go with them.

I'd hit that. Damn.

[Cobhanglica]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

[Peddieville]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

DADT was a compromise to avoid this. Since they don't like the compromise, we might as well just go back to locking out gays entirely.

Or we could let them serve openly, and recognize that liking people of the same gender has nothing to do with military performance. Any reason why your path is better?

[Greater Americania]

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is constitutional.

You're not legally empowered to make that decision.

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

[Liuzzo]

More autocratic government by the courts under the premise of "constitutionality"; despite the fact that such decisions basically amount to the Court rewriting the Constitution to suit its views. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could possibly be construed as giving gays an unalienable right to serve openly in the military.

and can you find something that bars them from doing so in the document? Oh, didn't think in the alternative did you? The courts job is to interpret law. Read the fucking document 100 times and then come back and post. Sorry, my give a damn is busted today.

[Geniasis]

Point to me where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Where does it say that black people are entitled to military service?

[The Parkus Empire]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

DADT was a compromise to avoid this. Since they don't like the compromise, we might as well just go back to locking out gays entirely.

Why? How exactly does someone's sexual preference make him less effective at his job?

[The Corparation]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Point where it says gays can't.

[Trippoli]

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is constitutional.

You're not legally empowered to make that decision.

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

But it's limiting a lifestyle and an individuals right to express it. Thus unconstitutional.

[The Parkus Empire]

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

"Black rights" was a laughable concept for quite a while, too.

[Greater Americania]

Neither were 'black rights' or 'female rights'.

I don't care. It doesn't matter. Just because you think a policy to be ideal, doesn't make it a Constitutional principle.

[Liuzzo]

More autocratic government by the courts under the premise of "constitutionality"; despite the fact that such decisions basically amount to the Court rewriting the Constitution to suit its views. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could possibly be construed as giving gays an unalienable right to serve openly in the military.

I fail to see how this entire thing is a problem. Nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuals can't serve in the armed forces, so the Religious Right has no real argument. Some homosexuals that were "outted" and discharged from the service were darn good soldiers (see greed and death's) post. This ruling isn't forcing gays to out themselves to join the military. We need more recruits. What is a drawback to this ruling? I can honestly not think of one.

How about the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution to actually justify it? Or the numerous arguments from actual members of the military that the presence of open homosexuals has the potential to disrupt unit cohesion and degrade the overall effectiveness of our forces.

and nothing that prohibits it either right? Or could you point that part out please?

[Peddieville]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Point to the part int he Constitution where you can chose your own spouse. Oh, wait, that isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Guess the government will be choosing spouses from now on.

[Greater Americania]

"Black rights" was a laughable concept for quite a while, too.

Again, I don't care. That's entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Trippoli]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Point where it says gays can't.

Don't ask, Don't Tell. They don't have homo detectors, so they have no choice to let gays serve, just as long as they can't express their lifestyle, which is unconstitutional, it's limiting a harmless lifestyle, which is expression, which violated the 1st amendment.

[Geniasis]

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

Your opinion doesn't have any legal weight.

[Peddieville]

but if I were a women

Would that mean you'd have two or more vaginae?

And two heads to go with them.

I'd hit that. Damn.

Wait, would I have four breasts? Oh, I definitely hit myself.

[Holy Paradise]

Neither were 'black rights' or 'female rights'.

I don't care. It doesn't matter. Just because you think a policy to be ideal, doesn't make it a Constitutional principle.

And just because you don't believe a policy to be ideal, does not make it a Constitutional principle.

[Grave_n_idle]

DADT is punishing people for free expression - it's contrary to the 1st Amendment. That's even ignoring questions about which other Constitutional articles are infringed.

It's hardly activism.

Your rights to free expression are limited when you join the military. For example, you can't stage a protest when ordered by your commanding officer to fall in. In the same way, you can't present yourself as a homosexual if your military branch orders you not to. The Constitution is such an ambiguous document, but what is sure is that 'gay rights' wasn't on the minds of the people who wrote the First Amendment in the late 18th century.

I don't know who told you that it matters what was on the minds of the crafters of the Constitution?

It's not the first time I've seen that 'argument' (such as it is) and it's never yet mattered. The Constitution is pretty specific that there are things it leaves out, and that they are covered by the Constitution. Read it sometime, it'll make it less likely you'll post this kind of rubbish defence.

As to whether or not the military gets to limit your freedom of expression - the court has decided that it doesn't have that authority, in this case - that's rather the point. Again, is it really too much to ask that you actually read the article?

[SaintB]

DADT is punishing people for free expression - it's contrary to the 1st Amendment. That's even ignoring questions about which other Constitutional articles are infringed.

It's hardly activism.

Your rights to free expression are limited when you join the military. For example, you can't stage a protest when ordered by your commanding officer to fall in. In the same way, you can't present yourself as a homosexual if your military branch orders you not to. The Constitution is such an ambiguous document, but what is sure is that 'gay rights' wasn't on the minds of the people who wrote the First Amendment in the late 18th century.

They can't reasonably order you to change your own nature, and you obey orders from your officers because its your job, its got nothing to do with restricting the first amendment rights of soldiers WHO CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT ON THEIR OWN TIME