Supreme Court Rejects DADT Challenge; Obama's White House Defends DADT

[stevento]

A seargent was discharged from the military for disclosed homosexuality and tried to take it to court but...
link (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7782694)
The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans.
...
The White House argues the policy fosters cohesion and military discipline.

My commentary: It's good to see that the government has backbone and is upholding this policy, and not wavering to the whim of the gay rights movement.

[leekohler]

We know what your opinion is- thanks. :rolleyes:

[Shivetya]

Considering how much Obama turned into Bush after assuming the Presidency maybe he is Condi's and George's kid.

I have a few left to very leaning friends and they are all foaming at the mouth over Obama now... gung ho and practically in love with him during the election many are spitting mad now at all of his turn abouts.


As to the article, the UCMJ would have to be updated, the thing even allows the military to punish for adultery.

[Queso]

Different show, same bunch of muppets.

[FX120]

Ah yes, another great time to pull out the old:

http://anodizedblue.net/images/obama.jpg

[.Andy]

So a great speech about gay rights and then taking a play straight from the homophobe's playbook. Smooth.

[leekohler]

So a great speech about gay rights and then taking a play straight from the homophobe's playbook. Smooth.

Uh...how about it? I sent an e-mail to the White House already. I suggest all of us who are appalled by this do the same.

[it5five]

So a great speech about gay rights and then taking a play straight from the homophobe's playbook. Smooth.

This should be no surprise to anyone. In thread about Obama's speech about gay rights I posted a link to a news story about how the Pentagon and the White House have no plans to change the DADT policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30830397/

That story was from May 19.

[mattniles007]

With the four right wing hacks on the court this should come as no surprise. Obama is a politician like FDR who said push me to make the change. We all need to continue to push.

[mattniles007]

Considering how much Obama turned into Bush after assuming the Presidency maybe he is Condi's and George's kid.

I have a few left to very leaning friends and they are all foaming at the mouth over Obama now... gung ho and practically in love with him during the election many are spitting mad now at all of his turn abouts.


As to the article, the UCMJ would have to be updated, the thing even allows the military to punish for adultery.

I saw this and remember a few years ago a couple in my squadron was brought up on Adultery charges, I was shocked the leadership went through with it. Kind of off topic I apologize :o

[leekohler]

This should be no surprise to anyone. In thread about Obama's speech about gay rights I posted a link to a news story about how the Pentagon and the White House have no plans to change the DADT policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30830397/

That story was from May 19.

That doesn't mean we stop fighting. If anything, we start pushing harder.

[FreeState]

My commentary: It's good to see that the government has backbone and is upholding this policy, and not wavering to the whim of the gay rights movement.


Or apparently wavering to the whims of the American People or the whims of Christians:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/06/weekly_churchgoers_favor_gay_service_members.html

Weekly Churchgoers Favor Gay Service Members

Support for allowing openly gay members of the military jumped 11 percentage points among weekly churchgoers, Gallup reports. That means that a majority of weekly churchgoers--60 percent--now favors permitting openly gay military members. Weekly churchgoers are generally considered the most politically and socially conservative members of religious communities.

Overall support in the U.S. for allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military has climbed to 69 percent from 63 percent.

Gallup suggests that these numbers mean that President Barack Obama may be well-positioned to repeal the 1993 policy. It has been a major priority of gay rights groups since Obama came to office. Politico reported this week that these groups have grown increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration and its progress on gay rights issues. Obama promised during the campaign to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jgo-xlkuz0s5sdkj3t5eog.gif

[Rodimus Prime]

Could some one please explain the Dont Ask Dont tell policy" and the problems with it?

I ask because it seems to always be talk about being bad and things wrong but never explain. I always been kind of confused by it. Wiki was little help. I can see how in Theory it could of worked but theory and reality in things like this hardly ever line up.
All I know now it is it a source of controversy. What would people rather the policy be and what type.

[it5five]

What would people rather the policy be and what type.

Anyone, regardless of gender or sexuality, who wants to serve in the military can, assuming they pass the required physical and written test that is required right now.

[leekohler]

Could some one please explain the Dont Ask Dont tell policy" and the problems with it?

I ask because it seems to always be talk about being bad and things wrong but never explain. I always been kind of confused by it. Wiki was little help. I can see how in Theory it could of worked but theory and reality in things like this hardly ever line up.
All I know now it is it a source of controversy. What would people rather the policy be and what type.

If you're in the military and someone finds out you're gay, you get discharged. Clear enough? ;)

[Queso]

Could some one please explain the Dont Ask Dont tell policy" and the problems with it?

I ask because it seems to always be talk about being bad and things wrong but never explain. I always been kind of confused by it. Wiki was little help. I can see how in Theory it could of worked but theory and reality in things like this hardly ever line up.
All I know now it is it a source of controversy. What would people rather the policy be and what type.
As I understand it, you can be gay and serve in the US military, but only if nobody ever finds out. So you can't talk about it, you can't openly have a partner, and if someone hurls abuse at you you're supposed to pretend that you're something you're not. It's a nice way to ensure that nobody ever has to consider that gay people play a part in defending the USA just as straights do, and therefore the top brass and politicians can continue to bury their heads in the sand and deny gay people equality under the law.

[Shivetya]

With the four right wing hacks on the court this should come as no surprise. Obama is a politician like FDR who said push me to make the change. We all need to continue to push.

What does the Supremes have to do with this? Right Wing hacks? They are not there to make law, only interpret it. As was right, they decided the military can set bounds and limits on its personnel that would not work in regular society.

I guess if they don't agree with you its best to call them names? lol, recess is over.

[Queso]

...they decided the military can set bounds and limits on its personnel that would not work in regular society.
Even if it makes the military less effective as a result....

[leekohler]

What does the Supremes have to do with this? Right Wing hacks? They are not there to make law, only interpret it. As was right, they decided the military can set bounds and limits on its personnel that would not work in regular society.

I guess if they don't agree with you its best to call them names? lol, recess is over.

The Court said no such thing. The case wasn't even heard.

lol- class is in session. Please pay attention. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

What does the Supremes have to do with this? Right Wing hacks? They are not there to make law, only interpret it. As was right, they decided the military can set bounds and limits on its personnel that would not work in regular society.
Unfortunately for your sad talking points, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS is the MOST "activist" group, making law rather than interpreting it at a far greater rate than their more liberal counterparts.

[leekohler]

Unfortunately for your sad talking points, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS is the MOST "activist" group, making law rather than interpreting it at a far greater rate than their more liberal counterparts.

I would really like to see this "activist" thing go away. Bush is no longer in office. Can we leave his terms behind too?

[stevento]

If you're in the military and someone finds out you're gay, you get discharged.

The policy has two parts.
1. Don't Ask
2. Don't Tell

The military isn't asking if you are gay. Keep it to yourself and you're fine. It's not only against policy to state that you are gay, but it's also against the policy to ask if someone is gay. So it's not like they are going around trying to weed out the homosexuals, and if there are cases of this happening, then it's against policy and should be terminated immediately.

[xUKHCx]

The policy has two parts.


Then end result though is still the same you are discharged because of your sexuality.

What happens to people who disobey the Don't Ask policy and who are straight.

[NT1440]

Pathetic.

I guess that adds to the short list of things I don't like about this administration. Somehow most of them are about gay rights, go figure.

The like list is still way longer...

[leekohler]

The policy has two parts.
1. Don't Ask
2. Don't Tell



What happens to the people who ask? I don't recall anyone being discharged for asking. Please explain how that works.

[Blue Velvet]

As I understand it, repealing DADT would have to be done by Congress... and one thing that's certain about Obama: he doesn't move until all his pieces are in place.


June 6th:

President Obama introduced his nominee to be Secretary of the Army on Tuesday. It's John McHugh, a Republican congressman from New York, and he's opposed to the DADT policy.

...

I expect at some point a commission to be appointed of retired military leaders to issue a report supporting the repeal of the policy. All of this provides political cover for Obama to avoid the backlash that occurred when Clinton tried to do the same thing 16 years ago.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/06/obamas_army_secretary_against.php


In January, Sandy Tsao, an army officer based out of St. Louis, MO, told her superiors that she is gay — a violation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. Tsao then wrote to President Obama, urging him to change the DADT policy: “I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice.” On May 5, Tsao received a handwritten letter from Obama with a pledge to repeal DADT at some point:

http://glaadblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/picture-1.png


Obama wrote that he is “committed to changing our current policy” but that “it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action).

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[leekohler]

Thanks for posting Ms BV. That's encouraging at least.

[FreeState]

As I understand it, repealing DADT would have to be done by Congress... and one thing that's certain about Obama: he doesn't move until all his pieces are in place.:

However he could stop the firings today with a single executive order while all the other pieces fall into place. 219 people have been fired - from their careers - since Obama took office. These peoples livelihoods have been taken away - careers of many many years. Its appalling to me that he has not ended the firings.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2009/05/new-study-says-obama-can-halt-gay-discharges-with-executive-order/

"SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they’re gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, “How to End Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara."

[leekohler]

However he could stop the firings today with a single executive order while all the other pieces fall into place. 219 people have been fired - from their careers - since Obama took office. These peoples livelihoods have been taken away - careers of many many years. Its appalling to me that he has not ended the firings.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2009/05/new-study-says-obama-can-halt-gay-discharges-with-executive-order/

"SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they’re gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, “How to End Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara."

Then he should do it now. Public support is there, and we need as many skilled military personnel as possible.

[Blue Velvet]

However he could stop the firings today with a single executive order while all the other pieces fall into place.


But he's not going to do that, because it could be easily undone at the stroke of another pen four or eight years down the line.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support the policy, but I recognise the political realities and priorities that are in place after only five months in office during two wars and the worst recession since the 1930s. Personally, I don't think his political capital on domestic policy is as solid as some think... he's still in a trust and coalition-building phase, evidenced by the renewed publicity push on the stimulus right now. He has made a political calculation that keeping the Pentagon on side while Gates cuts big and unproven defense programs might be more useful in the long run than picking a fight between the executive and the military right now.

Softly softly, catchee monkey.

[FreeState]

But he's not going to do that, because it could be easily undone at the stroke of another pen four or eight years down the line.

Not if he uses his bully pulpit as he promised to get Congress to pass the repeal. In the mean time he could save the careers of many brave men and women. He can and should stop the firings by any means possible and then make it permanent.

[stevento]

What happens to the people who ask? I don't recall anyone being discharged for asking. Please explain how that works.

Well for one, it's against the law for them to ask at recruiting offices. I haven't heard any stories about those who ask being discharged but I'm sure they're reprimanded in some way. In the military if you breathe the wrong way, you're punished.

[leekohler]

Well for one, it's against the law for them to ask at recruiting offices. I haven't heard any stories about those who ask being discharged but I'm sure they're reprimanded in some way. In the military if you breathe the wrong way, you're punished.

That's not good enough. You need to find out what happens to those who ask. That was a cop out. If they aren't being discharged as well, how is that fair? What if another soldier goes digging into someone's life and finds out another soldier is gay and reports it to superiors? Do the superiors then get to ask the gay soldier, evem though he/she hasn't told anyone? You might want to find those answers.