Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

[Greater Americania]

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.

I'm a registered voter. So yes, it does.

[Liuzzo]

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.

Neither was the internet. Should we not have laws regarding that?

[Xsyne]

I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired.

You're opposed to the courts ensuring that the law matches what is constitutionally allowed?

I'm getting tired of Courts pretending that what they want to see become a reality is the only Constitutional way to go.

Did you even read the article? I realise you'd have had to click on a link, and then actually read and consider something, but it's a small sacrifice, really.

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.

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

Which is still unconstitutional. You might want to try reading the thing sometime, it's not that long and there really aren't any words you shouldn't know.

[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.

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

Might need to invest in a sybian or something like one.

[Bydlostan (Ancient)]

What? Nobody wants to hear that shit.

Or did you detect a double entendre?

Most soldiers I know spend about 25%-50% of their conversation talking about their sex life--probably fictionalizing a good deal of it. We do like to talk about our sex lives, so I guess we are all these "nobodies" you speak of.

Well, they shouldn't, its against EO policy, namely the bit about creating a hostile workplace. Last I checked soldiers were expected to act like professionals anyways.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/powerpoint/EO_Presentations/definition-of-sexual-hara-2.shtml

[New Wallonochia]

I for one am very glad of this and say it's about damn time. A person's sexual preferences has no bearing on their love for their country or their ability to fight.

It's even better, because we all know that gays have the unbeatable power to shoot powerful, death-dealing liquid from their penises.

That's how the North Vietnamese really won.

I've always thought we should put gays in charge of making our uniforms. They'll know when the camo clashes with the background.

Maybe then they never would have bought those bullshit ACUs. I hate them so much.

[Grave_n_idle]

"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.

Irrelevant. Just because it's not specifically enumerated, doesn't mean it's not covered. If only they'd mentioned that somewhere, eh?


Get back to us when you've read the Constitution.

[Peddieville]

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.

I'm a registered voter. So yes, it does.

Not in terms of the judiciary branch it doesn't.

[Geniasis]

I'm a registered voter. So yes, it does.

Explain how that empowers you to decide what the Constitution does and does not say.

[Underium]

Ok i am all for gay rights, but i do not see anything in the constitution saying that all emn have the freedom and the right to serve in the armed forces if so pelase tell me where! so unfortunately it is constituional even if it is unfair, also about getting distracted, that makes me laugh so much! if theres a women the likes you wont you be just as distracted or even more so?

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

I don't any job will pay if you're not working when you're supposed to.

[Greater Americania]

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

Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't do that. It orders them not the be flamboyantly extravagant about their own sexual orientation.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired.

You're opposed to the courts ensuring that the law matches what is constitutionally allowed?

I'm getting tired of Courts pretending that what they want to see become a reality is the only Constitutional way to go.

Did you even read the article? I realise you'd have had to click on a link, and then actually read and consider something, but it's a small sacrifice, really.

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.

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

That would fall foul of equal protection, at the very least. But keep on trollin'.

[The Corparation]

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.

I'm a registered voter. So yes, it does.

Sadly that isn't always the case for many elections.

[Trippoli]

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.

I'm a registered voter. So yes, it does.

Unfortunately, so you practice your constitutional right, to limit another's constitutional right?

[Liuzzo]

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.

Thank you your honor. Where did you get your JD?

[The Parkus Empire]

Maybe then they never would have bought those bullshit ACUs. I hate them so much.

Velcro is evil.

[Exilia and Colonies]

Ok i am all for gay rights, but i do not see anything in the constitution saying that all emn have the freedom and the right to serve in the armed forces if so pelase tell me where! so unfortunately it is constituional even if it is unfair, also about getting distracted, that makes me laugh so much! if theres a women the likes you wont you be just as distracted or even more so?

Just because it's not specifically enumerated doesn't mean it's not protected. Lrn2constitution.

[Greater Americania]

Not in terms of the judiciary branch it doesn't.

And any of yours does? I was unaware that I was debating so many federal judges.

[Daistallia 2104]

Excellent news.
The courts did their job well, as usual.

[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.

Might need to invest in a sybian or something like one.

Two of them, actually.

[Potarius]

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.

I don't any job will pay if you're not working when you're supposed to.

Unless you accidentally yourself.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't do that. It orders them not the be flamboyantly extravagant about their own sexual orientation.

No, it says if they kiss a man or even mention that they're gay, then they are to be thrown out.

[The Corparation]

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

Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't do that. It orders them not the be flamboyantly extravagant about their own sexual orientation.

Under the policy they don't even have to say that they're gay, someone just has to find out that there gay.

[Liuzzo]

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 where it says they should be banned. Nice game. That's why we have courts for in that pesky constitution. Shit!