Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

[The Parkus Empire]

What's the big deal, anyway? Are openly gay service members more likely to rape people or something? I don't get it. What's so bad about it?

I'd still like an answer to this.

It's because some people just long for the good old days of the ancient times. Pillage, plunder, and village women. A gay soldier just won't take part, which makes him a poopyhead who doesn't like the same bonding activities as the rest. *nods sagely*

Didn't ancient Greek soldiers have teh gay?

[Kwewu]

This is what i think will happen because of this. Soldier A develops feelings for Soldier B. Soldier B is wounded/killed while in combat as the rest of his squad is retreating. Soldier A goes back for Soldier B because of his feelings and gets killed as well. Soldier A could be carrying extra ammo, or the medical supplies. It's also another life lost. In my opinion, nothing good will come of this.

Of course, in your little thought experiment, Soldier B could have been the one with the ammo or medical supplies, that would have got left behind if Soldier A hadn't gone back for him.

I think you've watched too much Pirates of the Caribbean if you immediately assume that anyone that falls behind, is left behind. Regardless of whether or not they are lovers.

Soldier B could have the ammo or medical supplies, but if the area is under fire, you don't go back immediately for it. Soldier A might immediately go back for him, instead of waiting for the firefight to subside. Emotion clouds judgement.

On a side note: Not a huge fan of Pirates. Seen the first one once and thats it.

same problem if you replaced soldier B with a girl soldier A was interested in!

Yes, same problem, but thats why i don't want women on the front lines. But thats a topic for another thread

[Cobhanglica]

This is off topic and I'm not going too get into it any further than to point you to the supremacy clause. Otherwise under your argument Georgia could bring back slavery and the federal government could do nothing about it. Because the states have the right to make that decision. Ok folks, I need to get my "liberal" (HAHA) ass to bed to go to work tomorrow. Be well and may the Goddess of Nymn bless you with her minions. Yes, sarcasm is just my method of dealing with incredible thickness.

Slavery is banned under the 13th Amendment. Georgia couldn't bring it back unless they first repealed that Amendment. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and the supremacy clause merely states that the laws of the federal government supersede those of the states when they conflict with one another. It does NOT in any way, shape, or form grant the federal government unlimited powers to legislate in any area that it pleases.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

There's the thing that marriage is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right...

What do you base that claim on? Why isn't it - for example - one of the 'rights' not-specifically-enumerated?

You have to limit the extent of the 14th Amendment somewhere; otherwise it can be used to protect any and all activities. I prefer to go no further than the text of the Constitution when it comes to looking at the 14th.

What you prefer is irrelevant. The whole point of including text that specified that there ARE other 'rights' not specifically enumerated - is that there ARE other rights, NOT specifically enumerated.

If you're arguing only the specifically enumerated rights are genuine, you're arguing in opposition to the Constitution. Your argument is, by definition, un-Constitutional.

[Sith Korriban]

What's the big deal, anyway? Are openly gay service members more likely to rape people or something? I don't get it. What's so bad about it?

I'd still like an answer to this.

It's because some people just long for the good old days of the ancient times. Pillage, plunder, and village women. A gay soldier just won't take part, which makes him a poopyhead who doesn't like the same bonding activities as the rest. *nods sagely*

Didn't ancient Greek soldiers have teh gay?

Oh yes, but they washed and shaved and all that stuff. Not manly enough for the Viking fetishists...

[The Corparation]

equal rights and equal opportunities

Not in the military, you don't.

But why should something as simple as one's sexual orientation affect things?

It shouldn't. However people have a way of making things like that affect things.

[The Parkus Empire]

Soldier B could have the ammo or medical supplies, but if the area is under fire, you don't go back immediately for it. Soldier A might immediately go back for him, instead of waiting for the firefight to subside. Emotion clouds judgement.

That happens easily without gays serving openly--that happens all the time, because combat troops have a bond that is stronger than husband and wife.

[Zephie]

What's the big deal, anyway? Are openly gay service members more likely to rape people or something? I don't get it. What's so bad about it?

I'd still like an answer to this.

It's because some people just long for the good old days of the ancient times. Pillage, plunder, and village women. A gay soldier just won't take part, which makes him a poopyhead who doesn't like the same bonding activities as the rest. *nods sagely*

Didn't ancient Greek soldiers have teh gay?

yes, many armies practiced homosexuality, mostly because there were no women around.

[Serrland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7js0mL ... re=related

The West Wing handled this issue pretty well, IMO

[The Parkus Empire]

Oh yes, but they washed and shaved and all that stuff. Not manly enough for the Viking fetishists...

Nah, they didn't shave until Alexander the Great made it hip.

I dunno about washing, though. Yes, we will have to do something about that. . . .

[Grave_n_idle]

Emotion clouds judgement.

Absolutely. Fear, for example. Big motivator. Probably features a WHOLE lot more in the heat of battle than being horny.

On the other hand - you know what clouds judgement even more than emotion? Some fucker shooting you. And yet, the military somehow manages to deal with that risk.

[Cobhanglica]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

There's the thing that marriage is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right...

What do you base that claim on? Why isn't it - for example - one of the 'rights' not-specifically-enumerated?

You have to limit the extent of the 14th Amendment somewhere; otherwise it can be used to protect any and all activities. I prefer to go no further than the text of the Constitution when it comes to looking at the 14th.

What you prefer is irrelevant. The whole point of including text that specified that there ARE other 'rights' not specifically enumerated - is that there ARE other rights, NOT specifically enumerated.

If you're arguing only the specifically enumerated rights are genuine, you're arguing in opposition to the Constitution. Your argument is, by definition, un-Constitutional.

I'm not arguing in opposition to the Constitution. It doesn't state that marriage is a right guaranteed to individuals (nor does it grant the federal government any powers to regulate it), so under the 10th Amendment, that power may fall either to the state governments (which it has for the entirety of our history) or to individuals to marry as they see fit.

[Caninope]

This is off topic and I'm not going too get into it any further than to point you to the supremacy clause. Otherwise under your argument Georgia could bring back slavery and the federal government could do nothing about it. Because the states have the right to make that decision. Ok folks, I need to get my "liberal" (HAHA) ass to bed to go to work tomorrow. Be well and may the Goddess of Nymn bless you with her minions. Yes, sarcasm is just my method of dealing with incredible thickness.

Slavery is banned under the 13th Amendment. Georgia couldn't bring it back unless they first repealed that Amendment. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and the supremacy clause merely states that the laws of the federal government supersede those of the states when they conflict with one another. It does NOT in any way, shape, or form grant the federal government unlimited powers to legislate in any area that it pleases.

Slavery is completely legal, so long as you are found guilty of a crime, and that is part of the punishment.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not arguing in opposition to the Constitution. It doesn't state that marriage is a right guaranteed to individuals...

Sure it does. Just, not specifically, and with enumeration.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, same problem, but thats why i don't want women on the front lines. But thats a topic for another thread

It's because of people like you that we don't get stress relief out there other than cigarettes.

[Ceannairceach]

Well, now that its legal, time to work on some other terrible atrocities.
*Goes to protest Kosovo and make Marijuana legal*

Really, though, its a pretty good thing. I know several openly gay people who have expressed interest in the military at those annoying High School recruitment booths, but couldn't due to the DADT policy.

[Sith Korriban]

Oh yes, but they washed and shaved and all that stuff. Not manly enough for the Viking fetishists...

Nah, they didn't shave until Alexander the Great made it hip.

I dunno about washing, though. Yes, we will have to do something about that. . . .

The body produces oil. Therefore the only thing to do is slather soldiers (but not their uniforms, those have to be tidy so they can put them on after) in lots and lots of oil.

And let me watch.

[Cobhanglica]

I'm not arguing in opposition to the Constitution. It doesn't state that marriage is a right guaranteed to individuals...

Sure it does. Just, not specifically, and with enumeration.

I can just as well say that the regulation of marriage is a right guaranteed to the states.

[Red Zone 1]

Wow. Took them this long for the court to figure that one out.

[The Corparation]

This is off topic and I'm not going too get into it any further than to point you to the supremacy clause. Otherwise under your argument Georgia could bring back slavery and the federal government could do nothing about it. Because the states have the right to make that decision. Ok folks, I need to get my "liberal" (HAHA) ass to bed to go to work tomorrow. Be well and may the Goddess of Nymn bless you with her minions. Yes, sarcasm is just my method of dealing with incredible thickness.

Slavery is banned under the 13th Amendment. Georgia couldn't bring it back unless they first repealed that Amendment. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and the supremacy clause merely states that the laws of the federal government supersede those of the states when they conflict with one another. It does NOT in any way, shape, or form grant the federal government unlimited powers to legislate in any area that it pleases.

Slavery is completely legal, so long as you are found guilty of a crime, and that is part of the punishment.

That's not slavery. Slavery is when someone owns you.

[Liuzzo]

The USSC is not part of the federal government? Thanks for the lesson.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=3252779Wrong
It's not the part that gets to control the military. Congress passes the laws to fund and create the armies and the President commands them. SCOTUS has no powers relating to the military.

Wrong: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34697.pdf

Wrong: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34697_20081006.pdf

That was the appelate control of the court over military justice.

Here's over the President http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4723 The court has the check of the president just like they do the legislative.

And over congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

Good night for real y'all.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not arguing in opposition to the Constitution. It doesn't state that marriage is a right guaranteed to individuals...

Sure it does. Just, not specifically, and with enumeration.

I can just as well say that the regulation of marriage is a right guaranteed to the states.

So, it's NOT a right, but it IS a right...

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

[The Parkus Empire]

The body produces oil. Therefore the only thing to do is slather soldiers (but not their uniforms, those have to be tidy so they can put them on after) in lots and lots of oil.

And let me watch.

Talk about a wet dream.

[Liuzzo]

This is off topic and I'm not going too get into it any further than to point you to the supremacy clause. Otherwise under your argument Georgia could bring back slavery and the federal government could do nothing about it. Because the states have the right to make that decision. Ok folks, I need to get my "liberal" (HAHA) ass to bed to go to work tomorrow. Be well and may the Goddess of Nymn bless you with her minions. Yes, sarcasm is just my method of dealing with incredible thickness.

Slavery is banned under the 13th Amendment. Georgia couldn't bring it back unless they first repealed that Amendment. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and the supremacy clause merely states that the laws of the federal government supersede those of the states when they conflict with one another. It does NOT in any way, shape, or form grant the federal government unlimited powers to legislate in any area that it pleases.

Right so no DOMA and what can the states do? The 14th still applies. Getting back to the military please. I'm not having a gay marriage debate here that is already handles.

[Bydlostan (Ancient)]

equal rights and equal opportunities

Not in the military, you don't.

But why should something as simple as one's sexual orientation affect things?

It shouldn't effect anything by itself, but Sodomy is still a punishable offense in the UCMJ. So its not wise admit to that sort of thing anyways.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.