Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

[variablebinary]

I have no comment at this time, however, this should come from congress and the president, not some judge

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gays_in_military_recruiting


WASHINGTON – The Defense Department said Tuesday that it is accepting openly gay recruits, but is warning applicants they might not be allowed to stick around for long.
Following last week's court ruling that struck down a 1993 law banning gays from serving openly, the military has suspended enforcement of the rule known as "don't ask, don't tell." The Justice Department is appealing the decision and has asked the courts for a temporary stay on the ruling.

[Complication]

I read an article the other day alleging that the administration was unhappy with this coming from the judicial branch and was trying to get the change made through new legislature so that it would be less controversial (this article came up in a google search and explains that thought process http://www.cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2010/10/19/slow-repeal). I also ran across an amusing fanatically-liberal article deriding the administration for not just declaring the end of DADT and concluding by reasoning the only explanation was Obama secretly hates gays.

Either way, I happen to agree with this Marine: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/dont-ask-dont-tell-a-gay-marine-writes/

[Alric]

I find it interesting how the military (typically considered conservative) responds immediately to a judicial ruling, whereas a liberal entity like Chicago or Washington DC tries to fight conservative judicial rulings or dismiss them outright.

[Complication]

I find it interesting how the military (typically considered conservative) responds immediately to a judicial ruling, whereas a liberal entity like Chicago or Washington DC tries to fight conservative judicial rulings or dismiss them outright.

Because the Military is a radically different entity than a city? And from a society's perspective, the Military doing anything but complying fully with the law is vastly more concerning than a city?

And the administration IS trying to appeal certain parts of this process. I believe that falls under "fighting" the ruling.

[Belmont31R]

I didn't realize a district court Federal judge had authority world wide over the military....? Aren't judge's rulings lower than SCOTUS limited to only their "district" or AO?



Oh and I don't like judges being able to order the military around. That chain of command needs to be left the **** alone. Could a judge order a nuke strike?

[Complication]

I didn't realize a district court Federal judge had authority world wide over the military....?

Federal entity, federal judge. What more is there to it? It can be appealed higher than a district court, sure. But why on early WOULDN'T a federal judge have authority to make a ruling on a federal case in his courtroom with regards to a federal entity?

[Belmont31R]

Because the Military is a radically different entity than a city? And from a society's perspective, the Military doing anything but complying fully with the law is vastly more concerning than a city?

And the administration IS trying to appeal certain parts of this process. I believe that falls under "fighting" the ruling.




Whats concerning to me is a low lever district court judge apparently can issue the military orders now.

[Complication]

It's not a military order.

Congress (legislature) wrote a law (DADT), the president (executive) signed it, and now the judge (judicial) is making a ruling on the law. This is exactly the way our balance of power government works . I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but it's not like the judge is doing anything outside his jurisdiction.

[Palmguy]

Because the Military is a radically different entity than a city? And from a society's perspective, the Military doing anything but complying fully with the law is vastly more concerning than a city?

And the administration IS trying to appeal certain parts of this process. I believe that falls under "fighting" the ruling.

There is a huge difference between the military complying fully with a court order as in this case and for instance the response of the District of Columbia to the Heller ruling.

[khc3]

I read an article the other day alleging that the administration was unhappy with this coming from the judicial branch and was trying to get the change made through new legislature so that it would be less controversial (this article came up in a google search and explains that thought process http://www.cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2010/10/19/slow-repeal). I also ran across an amusing fanatically-liberal article deriding the administration for not just declaring the end of DADT and concluding by reasoning the only explanation was Obama secretly hates gays.

Either way, I happen to agree with this Marine: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/dont-ask-dont-tell-a-gay-marine-writes/

Repealing DADT is as much about "allowing patriotic homosexuals to serve" as much as the battle for "gay rights" in my youth was about being "left alone."

Sure, it's not hard to imagine that there are numbers of patriotic, non-radical homosexuals in the service, who just want to serve and do their jobs.

Unfortunately, they aren't the ones moving the political football down the field.

When I was younger, the argument was privacy, a right I supported and still support, but I was told more than once, it won't stop there. And those people were right.

[Ejh28]

And boom goes the dynamite. . .

I was really hoping that the President/Congress could come up with a way to properly adapt to the DADT policy going away, but it looks like they don't get a chance to.

I don't feel that a federal judge should have done this, and thrown all thoughts of the consequences of his actions to the wind, just so he could be the one to abolish DADT. I think there will be much farther reaching issues of this policy to come. I mean they will have to re-write the playbook when it comes to anything surrounding this issue.

I was never in the military myself, so I personally don't know what this will do to the finest fighting force on the Earth, but I am looking forward to their opinions on the matter.

[Belmont31R]

It's not a military order.

Congress (legislature) wrote a law (DADT), the president (executive) signed it, and now the judge (judicial) is making a ruling on the law. This is exactly the way our balance of power government works . I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but it's not like the judge is doing anything outside his jurisdiction.



The entire military is not within this district courts jurisdiction. She is a Los Angeles District Court judge not the SCOTUS.


Why does every other ruling from a lower court only affect the area within their jurisdiction. Such as the Heller case?

[Complication]

The entire military is not within this district courts jurisdiction. She is a Los Angeles District Court judge not the SCOTUS.

I'm no legal scholar, but I don't understand how you get to SCOTUS without going through the lower levels of the courts. That's the way our legal system works as I understand it. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this. It's a federal case, the ruling made is one which operates on the federal level, and in this case, that means the entire military. Unless you're suggesting the military is above the law and no one can bring a case against it or that there's some shortcut to SCOTUS (and SCOTUS is somehow the only court that can make a decision with national repercussions).

For the record, I think the best way to handle the removal or alteration of DADT SHOULD be done through a new law. Congress should draft something which ends the policy and it should be done with the advisement of the DoD so the law is written in the right way. Doing it through the courts, while not illegal, opens the entire process up to a lot of confusion given the nature of both the policy and the appeals process.

[Alric]

Because the Military is a radically different entity than a city? And from a society's perspective, the Military doing anything but complying fully with the law is vastly more concerning than a city?

And the administration IS trying to appeal certain parts of this process. I believe that falls under "fighting" the ruling.

Any government entity not complying fully with the law should be concerning to society.

The administration may be attempting to fight it, but the results of the ruling are still being implemented. You can't say the same in defense of some of our more liberal cities.

[Belmont31R]

I'm no legal scholar, but I don't understand how you get to SCOTUS without going through the lower levels of the courts. That's the way our legal system works as I understand it. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this. It's a federal case, the ruling made is one which operates on the federal level, and in this case, that means the entire military. Unless you're suggesting the military is above the law and no one can bring a case against it or that there's some shortcut to SCOTUS (and SCOTUS is somehow the only court that can make a decision with national repercussions).

For the record, I think the best way to handle the removal or alteration of DADT SHOULD be done through a new law. Congress should draft something which ends the policy and it should be done with the advisement of the DoD so the law is written in the right way. Doing it through the courts, while not illegal, opens the entire process up to a lot of confusion given the nature of both the policy and the appeals process.



If a district court judge made a ruling on something else, say the 86 MG ban, that ruling would only be good inside his/her jurisdiction not the entire country.


So why wont the ATF register new machine guns? http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm

[Complication]

If a district court judge made a ruling on something else, say the 86 MG ban, that ruling would only be good inside his/her jurisdiction not the entire country.

You're suggesting
a) the military be exempt from judicial oversight because it's an organization which spans multiple districts or
b) the military operate under different laws in different districts and judges have no say over their behavior outside the country because that's out of their district?

[Belmont31R]

You're suggesting
a) the military be exempt from judicial oversight because it's an organization which spans multiple districts or
b) the military operate under different laws in different districts and judges have no say over their behavior outside the country because that's out of their district?



Ill answer your questions after you answer mine.

[Complication]

Perhaps this might be helpful to all involved....

Regarding a Federal District Court's jurisdiction (this is from Wikipedia, so go ahead and run those citations down if you want to cry foul):

The district courts exercise original jurisdiction over—that is, they are empowered to conduct trials in—the following types of cases:
Civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States;[8]
Certain civil actions between citizens of different states;[9]
Civil actions within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the United States;[10]
Criminal prosecutions brought by the United States;[11]
Civil actions in which the United States is a party;[12] and
Many other types of cases and controversies[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_district_court#Jurisdiction

Sounds like they have authority to rule on laws of the United States. Therefore they have authority to rule on DADT. Therefore if they are granted jurisdiction over the subject by congress ("Congress must first grant the court subject matter jurisdiction over the type of dispute in question") they have the right to make a decision in the matter. And if they make a ruling on a FEDERAL law, I don't see how it's possible to think it would only affect a certain district and not the rest of the country or, in fact, the very law itself.

So can we stop pretending that a federal district court judge is somehow overstepping his jurisdiction by making the ruling that he did?

[Belmont31R]

Perhaps this might be helpful to all involved....

Regarding a Federal District Court's jurisdiction (this is from Wikipedia, so go ahead and run those citations down if you want to cry foul):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_district_court#Jurisdiction

Sounds like they have authority to rule on laws of the United States. Therefore they have authority to rule on DADT. Therefore if they are granted jurisdiction over the subject by congress ("Congress must first grant the court subject matter jurisdiction over the type of dispute in question") they have the right to make a decision in the matter. And if they make a ruling on a FEDERAL law, I don't see how it's possible to think it would only affect a certain district and not the rest of the country or, in fact, the very law itself.

So can we stop pretending that a federal district court judge is somehow overstepping his jurisdiction by making the ruling that he did?


Then tell me why I cant register a post 86 machine gun?



As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.

[Complication]

Then tell me why I cant register a post 86 machine gun?

Because no one has taken that case to court yet and won. Welcome to the real world where few things work as they ideally should. I promise you if someone brought a case to a federal district court judge and they ruled that the ATF had to allow registrations, they would comply. They would appeal the every-loving S#!T out of the decision, but they would comply.

In this world, if someone isn't complying fully with the law, you take them to court, prove it, and force them to comply. Do you need a butt-load of money and time to do that? Yeah. But then take it up with the NRA, I'm sure if they think it's a good cause to fund, they will.

Nevertheless, just because one decision, in your opinion, doesn't work the way it should, it doesn't mean the entire system is invalidated.

[Belmont31R]

Because no one has taken that case to court yet and won. Welcome to the real world where few things work as they ideally should. I promise you if someone brought a case to a federal district court judge and they ruled that the ATF had to allow registrations, they would comply. They would appeal the every-loving S#!T out of the decision, but they would comply.

In this world, if someone isn't complying fully with the law, you take them to court, prove it, and force them to comply. Do you need a butt-load of money and time to do that? Yeah. But then take it up with the NRA, I'm sure if they think it's a good cause to fund, they will.

Nevertheless, just because one decision, in your opinion, doesn't work the way it should, it doesn't mean the entire system is invalidated.



Did you even read the link I posted? The ATF/US' case was dismissed which means the defendants won, and the judge ruled prosecutions cannot continue.


This gay case seems to be the exception since normally judge's rulings only affect the area their court has jurisdiction. Yes they have the authority to rule on law but their rulings only affect the area their court covers. That is why Heller only covered DC and not the entire country.

[Complication]

Did you even read the link I posted? The ATF/US' case was dismissed which means the defendants won, and the judge ruled prosecutions cannot continue.


This gay case seems to be the exception since normally judge's rulings only affect the area their court has jurisdiction. Yes they have the authority to rule on law but their rulings only affect the area their court covers. That is why Heller only covered DC and not the entire country.

I didn't read the link. Because the issue isn't post-86 MGs. The issue is:
1) does this court have jurisdiction?
Answer: Yes.

I don't understand your issue. The AREA the court has jurisdiction over is in this case not geographic but legal. It's AREA of jurisdiction is a federal law, not a region of the US.

SO..... what's the problem besides the fact that you disagree?

[Palmguy]

I didn't read the link. Because the issue isn't post-86 MGs.

Then you shouldn't have even bothered with (at least) the first half of your post in post 20.

[Complication]

Then you shouldn't have even bothered with (at least) the first half of your post in post 20.

True. But it seems everyone is looking for a legislative resolution to this issue one way or another. So the issue of jurisdiction is a bit silly (especially to me, since I'm clearly under the impression that nothing extra-legal was done here). The criticism that everyone seems to share is that doing this through the courts while the DoD is acting rather passively and not making it clear the service men and women exactly what this means to them is the big problem here.

It's a bit surprising to me that the point of contention seems to be that federal judges are now "issuing military orders" rather than "the whole process by which this is being handled is confusing the hell out of people and causing some potentially serious issues."

[Complication]

Someone has asked me via PM to contribute:

"You may want to point out to Belmont that the case he is throwing around was overruled by the 7th Circuit and is recognized as not being good law anymore."

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I didn't realize a district court Federal judge had authority world wide over the military....? Aren't judge's rulings lower than SCOTUS limited to only their "district" or AO?



Oh and I don't like judges being able to order the military around. That chain of command needs to be left the **** alone. Could a judge order a nuke strike?

Or could a judge more likely rule against launching a nuclear strike in the name of some endangered species in Russia or something.

I'm still with Belmont, I don't know how this 9th circuit decision is different than other ones that don't leak out of goofy west-coast land.

Tell you what they can let the gays in and maybe they can then deliver the mail in ballots to the troops overseas. Just because some bureaucrat or judge says that something has to happen, doesn't mean that is has to happen now.

"We are looking at ways of expediently following the ruling as soon as our lawyers reach a consensus to how to implement it without violating any privacy or the other 1 trillion federal edicts."

What I don't get with the whole gay thing is how it all got turned on its head. How is it that the gay side is the 'status quo' and we have to argue against it? 1000s of years of western culture and in the past 20 it seems like being queer was the preferred way to live and we are trying to stamp them out. When did go from the sin that dare not say its name to the sin that won't shut up?

Anyway, the MIL is just a stepping stone. They want to get any speech or position that doesn't show 'equality' between straits and gays as hate speech just like in race relations. Once you get that, the organized religions, especially Catholicism are in the cross hairs for legal and leftwing societal attack. Once you marginalize religion, and the individuality of the soul, its all down hill from there. Youthinasia ( ;) ), rationing healthcare, group rights over individual rights and a great big socialist shit sandwhich.

Here's hoping the Taliban doesn't figure out what the new symbol on your dog tag means.

[Complication]

How is it that the gay side is the 'status quo' and we have to argue against it? 1000s of years of western culture and in the past 20 it seems like being queer was the preferred way to live and we are trying to stamp them out. When did go from the sin that dare not say its name to the sin that won't shut up?

#1) DADT makes it illegal for gay men and women to serve openly. It doesn't make it illegal for them to serve in silence.
#2) You could make the same exact argument for:
women
slavery
civil rights
not invading and murdering your neighboring tribe
the guy with all the money making everyone else his serfs
why we use the m4 instead of muzzle-loaders
establishing sniper schools
using tanks instead of just infantry
Regardless of whether or not you're right, the actual argument you made just straight-up doesn't work. There may very well be good reasons not to do it but "hey, we've always done it this way" is a REALLY bad reason.

[Belmont31R]

This ruling isn't even from the 9th district.


This ruling came from a lower level than that. She is a judge for the eastern division of the Central California District Court.



On their website:


The Seven Counties in the jurisdiction of the
US District Court, California Central


http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/CourtInfo.nsf/c755da45cb6a17bc882567d10055026e/fd8558d7305c8fc9882567d100550d05?OpenDocument

[Belmont31R]

#1) DADT makes it illegal for gay men and women to serve openly. It doesn't make it illegal for them to serve in silence.
#2) You could make the same exact argument for:
women
slavery
civil rights
not invading and murdering your neighboring tribe
the guy with all the money making everyone else his serfs
why we use the m4 instead of muzzle-loaders
establishing sniper schools
using tanks instead of just infantry
Regardless of whether or not you're right, the actual argument you made just straight-up doesn't work. There may very well be good reasons not to do it but "hey, we've always done it this way" is a REALLY bad reason.



Would you be ok with treating gays like women meaning no combat arms? Theres a good reason for that. Do you know what it is?

[Ejh28]

Easy guys, let's be civil and discuss like adults. No need to get this locked when it's a very meaningful subject.

[Safetyhit]

My humble opinion is that Federal judge or not, this is a complicated issue only fully understood by those in the military. Therefore either they or possibly Congress should make the final decision as to what the best policy is.

It should not be up to one individual who is unrelated to military service.

[Complication]

This is the declaration of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA's jurisdiction in Witt vs. the USAF, challenging the constitutionality of DADT. I imagine the same jurisdictional justifications apply to the CA court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38098763/Witt-DADT

This Court has jurisdiction over the claims raised in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346 because plaintiff’s claims arise under the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, and a regulation of an executive department of the United States.This Court also has jurisdiction over the claims raised here under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 et. seq.

28 U.S.C. § 1331


From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 28USC1331]

[Page 330-331]

TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

CHAPTER 85--DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION


Sec. 1331. Federal question

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.

28 U.S.C. § 1346


From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 28USC1346]

[Page 340-343]

TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

CHAPTER 85--DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION


Sec. 1346. United States as defendant

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent
with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of:
(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery
of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been
collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been exces

[[Page 341]]

sive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-
revenue laws;
(2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States,
not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the
Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an
executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with
the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in
cases not sounding in tort, except that the district courts shall
not have jurisdiction of any civil action or claim against the
United States founded upon any express or implied contract with the
United States or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not
sounding in tort which are subject to sections 8(g)(1) and 10(a)(1)
of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. For the purpose of this
paragraph, an express or implied contract with the Army and Air
Force Exchange Service, Navy Exchanges, Marine Corps Exchanges,
Coast Guard Exchanges, or Exchange Councils of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be considered an express
or implied contract with the United States.

(b)(1) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the
district courts, together with the United States District Court for the
District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands,
shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the
United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945,
for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by
the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment,
under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would
be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where
the act or omission occurred.
(2) No person convicted of a felony who is incarcerated while
awaiting sentencing or while serving a sentence may bring a civil action
against the United States or an agency, officer, or employee of the
Government, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody
without a prior showing of physical injury.
(c) The jurisdiction conferred by this section includes jurisdiction
of any set-off, counterclaim, or other claim or demand whatever on the
part of the United States against any plaintiff commencing an action
under this section.
(d) The district courts shall not have jurisdiction under this
section of any civil action or claim for a pension.
(e) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
civil action against the United States provided in section 6226,
6228(a), 7426, or 7428 (in the case of the United States district court
for the District of Columbia) or section 7429 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
(f) The district courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
of civil actions under section 2409a to quiet title to an estate or
interest in real property in which an interest is claimed by the United
States.
(g) Subject to the provisions of chapter 179, the district courts of
the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any civil
action commenced under section 453(2) of title 3, by a covered employee
under chapter 5 of such title.

Is this enough to put the question of jurisdiction to rest (in addition to the fact that no one else seems especially concerned with the issue)?

As for whether or not I think gays should be in the military or what their capacity in it should be if they are, that's not at issue. I'm not here debating the merits of DADT or of ending it; I'm frustrated by the insistence that somehow this is a rogue judge. It's fine if you disagree, that's your prerogative. But it strikes me as ludicrous that somehow the word "DISTRICT" somehow means more than the actual legal jurisdiction possessed by these courts.

[Complication]

My humble opinion is that Federal judge or not, this is a complicated issue only fully understood by those in the military. Therefore either they or possibly Congress should make the final decision as to what the best policy is.

It should not be up to one individual who is unrelated to military service.

I almost entirely agree. There should be VAST input from the military but I think that ONLY congress* can make the decision as it deals with the law. It's an understatement to say I don't think it would be appropriate for the military to decide whether or not they want to follow the law.

ETA: *In the context of the above quote. As stated before, I think it's wholly appropriate for the judicial branch to overturn laws which it finds unconstitutional. But between JUST congress and the military, I think it's clear that congress decides what the law the military is bound to should be.

[chadbag]

I don't understand your issue. The AREA the court has jurisdiction over is in this case not geographic but legal. It's AREA of jurisdiction is a federal law, not a region of the US.

SO..... what's the problem besides the fact that you disagree?

It does not work like that. District Courts only have jurisdiction in the AREA of Federal Law as it applies in their own physical area of jurisdiction.

I cannot go to the District Court here in Utah and sue against a Federal Law, say ObamaCare, and have it rescinded for the whole country. If I were to win, it would only set a precedent here inside this District. This is often why stuff ends up at SCOTUS. Different and conflicting rulings come out of different parts of the US Federal Court system.

[Belmont31R]

You are confusing the jurisdiction of what the court can decide on vs. what geographical jurisdiction the rulings have. Of course they have jurisdiction over Federal law. No one has disputed that. What I don't get is why in every other case Ive ever read about the ruling only affects those living within the area of the court. Thats why we have districts, divsions, ect. SCOTUS has ruling over the entire country, district courts over the areas they are assigned, divisions, ect. It has been my understanding a judge only has authority over things within his geographical jurisdiction. For instance a CA judge cannot rule on a case from Maine, and a ruling by a judge in CA only affects the area within his jurisdiction. You keep bringing up things about their jurisdiction over federal law. They sure do but their rulings only stand within their division, district, ect. Only SCOTUS rulings go for the entire country, and even in Heller because the case was from DC the Heller ruling affected only DC. What you're saying is the lowest level Federal judge in the country can make a ruling over the entire country but the Supreme Court of the US cannot. Other cases are important because thats the way the legal system works. Its called precedent, and precedent is hugely important to our legal system.



Ive never heard of a division court ruling impacting the entire country.



Again I could be wrong but you haven't shown anything that says a low level division court judge's rulings go for the entire country. In every other case Ive heard...even for things like the 9th District (higher level) their rulings only affect the states within their district. You can go google the district court maps. Those judges rulings only stand within their district, and if it gets appealed higher than district it goes to the SC. Usually you need 2 opposing rulings from the district courts so the SCOTUS judges can settle the dispute between the lower courts. For instance 9th District rulings have no impact on me directly because I do not reside within their district. Im not saying they cannot make a ruling on a Federal law...they can...what Im saying is their ruling only goes so far as the geographical boundary set by law. You can go online and see the maps of each courts boundaries including the one this judge is in, and thats only two counties in southern CA.


And either way I don't think its a good idea to have extremely low level division level judges telling the military what to do, and thats exactly what this Berkeley grad of a judge did. No I do not think you should be able to sue the military. You should be able to sue the Fed Gov but not the military as a whole directly. Judges below the SC should not be able to issue directives which the military has to abide by. Its gay this time...what happens if our country got nuked, and some eco group gets a low level Fed judge like this to order the military to not use nukes in retaliation?

[Complication]

It does not work like that. District Courts only have jurisdiction in the AREA of Federal Law as it applies in their own physical area of jurisdiction.

Maybe this shows my ignorance of federal court jurisdiction, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have any legal education, but how is it possible to challenge the constitutionality of a federal (nation-wide) law, have a ruling in your favor, and have the law just not apply in a single region of the country? (The answer may well be "sometimes we just have a really screwed up legal system, which I absolutely agree with")

[Complication]

And if district courts' jurisdiction is wholly geographically-bound, that still doesn't answer the question "What's wrong with a district court issuing an such an injunction?" The military presumably has personnel and installations within the district, so does the judge not then have the necessary jurisdiction to compel them to comply with a legal decision?

[chadbag]

Maybe this shows my ignorance of federal court jurisdiction, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have any legal education, but how is it possible to challenge the constitutionality of a federal (nation-wide) law, have a ruling in your favor, and have the law just not apply in a single region of the country? (The answer may well be "sometimes we just have a really screwed up legal system, which I absolutely agree with")

That is how it works. You challenge the constitutionality and when the judge rules, that ruling is valid for that courts jurisdictional area only. Then the same thing happens in other jurisdictions. Eventually challenges and to clear up areas of disagreement (say two areas rule differently) it heads to SCOTUS

[Complication]

I suppose that, so long as there are not two contradictory decisions, realistically the military must comply with district decisions on a national level, however.

[Complication]

In an effort to expand the scope of the discussion:

THIS is a criticism that makes more sense to me:



The government said the "sweeping injunction against a duly enacted Act of Congress" was wrong as a matter of law. It is "at odds with basic principles of judicial restraint requiring courts to limit injunctive relief to the parties before the court, and is contrary to decisions of other courts, which have sustained the constitutionality of the statute."

Moreover, the judge's order suspending enforcement of the military's "don't ask" policy has caused "confusion and uncertainty" at the Pentagon and among gays and lesbians in the ranks, the government said.

If an appeals court reverses the judge and affirms the constitutionality of the law, it "would create tremendous uncertainty about the status of service members who may reveal their sexual orientation in reliance" on the judge's order suspending the law, the government said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1021-dont-ask-web-20101020,0,1158860.story

[chadbag]

I suppose that, so long as there are not two contradictory decisions, realistically the military must comply with district decisions on a national level, however.

Again, that is not how it works. Of course, not all cases are decided at the same time so there is ALWAYS a first case that is the only case for a while.

[Complication]

Again, that is not how it works. Of course, not all cases are decided at the same time so there is ALWAYS a first case that is the only case for a while.

What I mean is that, practically speaking, the military would have to comply nation-wide. It would be logistically impossible to allow openly gay service members in one district and uphold DADT in another. The only way to do that would be to keep openly gay service members stationed and trained within the district which would make them next to useless.

ETA: Or not comply at all, which would be illegal within that district. So even if the decision had effect only within the district, practically speaking, it would force the DoD to comply all over.

[Belmont31R]

I suppose that, so long as there are not two contradictory decisions, realistically the military must comply with district decisions on a national level, however.




Its already been explained to you a court's decision only goes so far as the area of their district/division.



This judge issuing a nationwide ruling is outside the scope of her bench's authority, and as was said conflicts with other court's rulings which she has no authority to over rule.


When this gets appealed up this will be brought up.

[Complication]

This judge issuing a nationwide ruling is outside the scope of her bench's authority, and as was said conflicts with other court's rulings which she has no authority to over rule.
I'm not sure I follow.
Someone brings suit against the DoD in a given district (within which the DoD has a presence). The judge rules against the defendants (the DoD).

Which part is outside the judge's authority? Does the DoD being a nation-wide entity render it immune from judicial action at any level below SCOTUS?

The injunction doesn't say "everywhere in every district". It "permanently enjoins Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act..."

I have the following understanding:
1) it is legal to bring suit against the DoD and entities like it
2) this must be, at least initially, done at the district level
3) judges may make rulings against defendants
4) the DoD, as defendants, can have rulings made against them by district court judges

Are the legal ramifications of such an injunction complex? Yes.
Does this violate judicial restraint? Quite possibly.
Is it "outside the scope of her bench" to issue an injunction against a defendant in a case before her bench? That's where you lose me.

[Complication]

By the way, this is the actual text of the injunction:
http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/10/12/full-text-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/

[Belmont31R]

I'm not sure I follow.
Someone brings suit against the DoD in a given district (within which the DoD has a presence). The judge rules against the defendants (the DoD).

Which part is outside the judge's authority? Does the DoD being a nation-wide entity render it immune from judicial action at any level below SCOTUS?

The injunction doesn't say "everywhere in every district". It "permanently enjoins Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act..."

I have the following understanding:
1) it is legal to bring suit against the DoD and entities like it
2) this must be, at least initially, done at the district level
3) judges may make rulings against defendants
4) the DoD, as defendants, can have rulings made against them by district court judges

Are the legal ramifications of such an injunction complex? Yes.
Does this violate judicial restraint? Quite possibly.
Is it "outside the scope of her bench" to issue an injunction against a defendant in a case before her bench? That's where you lose me.



No the DOD (if this was a legal ruling which I dont think it is) would only have to comply when operating inside of the judges jurisdiction. In this case this judge's jurisdiction is TWO (2) counties in southern California. So a legal ruling per the scope of the judges authority would only apply within those two counties. The DOD would have to accept homosexual applicants who otherwise qualify for mil service from there only. Not the entire country.


Other judges have upheld DADT, and this judge basically overuled them which she doesnt have the authority to do. She is only a division level judge. She doesnt have the authority to overule equal or greater level courts.


Think of each division or district like a state. Each state can only enact laws within its own state. Oklahoma could not pass a law that applies to me in Texas. Its the same basic concept for courts. Courts rulings only affect the area they have jurisdiction in. If you go to the link of this court I gave you this judge's court is the eastern division which is 2 counties. The scope of her bench/authority doesn't extend beyond those 2 counties, and she cannot overule a court of equal title in another area.


The only court that can issue nation wide rulings is the Supreme Court. Districts and division level courts cannot.


This is why in the article you linked it said this ruling was overreaching of this courts authority. One division level judge has no authority over the rest of the country. When you get up to district courts and above that is why each court has multiple judges so you don't get one person deciding things. Our current supreme court has 9 judges, and there has to be a majority rule on something to create a ruling. We don't want ONE judge deciding national cases.

[Belmont31R]

By the way, this is the actual text of the injunction:
http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/10/12/full-text-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/




Just based on my amateur opinion that judge has no authority to issue that, and the next court up is going to spank her for it. They may uphold the injunction but they are going to say something about her making this one national.


This is whats called "legislating from the bench", and most rational judges will spank lower court judges for doing it while acting outside of their scope.

[Complication]

You could have explained that in a post from the get-go and saved a lot of headache.

I have no doubt that what she did was pretty audacious and probably a little reckless but, evidently, am confused as to the legality.

I think one of the bigger things to come out of this will be the realization that this ultimately needs to be addressed by SCOTUS or Congress if we're going to avoid the spectacle and debacle that we're currently seeing.

[Belmont31R]

You could have explained that in a post from the get-go and saved a lot of headache.

I have no doubt that what she did was pretty audacious and probably a little reckless but, evidently, am confused as to the legality.

I think one of the bigger things to come out of this will be the realization that this ultimately needs to be addressed by SCOTUS or Congress if we're going to avoid the spectacle and debacle that we're currently seeing.



Well heres a map of the district courts. No district court can issue a ruling affecting the area inside another district court, and the same with division courts.



division<district<scotus


This woman is a division judge so she is on the bottom of the totem pole.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

[Belmont31R]

Here you go:




(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the Pentagon may temporarily reinstate a ban on openly gay men and women in uniform while a lengthier stay in favor of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is considered.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco added to the disarray surrounding a landmark legal battle that already has forced the U.S. military to welcome openly gay recruits for the first time.

Siding with the Obama administration, a three-judge appellate panel lifted an injunction issued last week by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips that barred further enforcement of a law requiring gay men and lesbians in the armed forces to keep their sexual orientation private.


Rest: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J3Y120101020?pageNumber=1




;)

[maximus83]

I have no comment at this time, however, this should come from congress and the president, not some judge

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gays_in_military_recruiting

Returning to the OP's point, I agree wholeheartedly. Specifically, this is the principle at stake: major policy decisions that directly affect several million lives (our active military) and directly affect our national defense, should be made through careful study and deliberation, and then enacted into law by Congress. Such policy decisions should NOT be made by judges based on a single court case. The fact that we have judges who are willing to overreach and try to make national policy directly from the bench like this, simply illustrates the enormous problem we have with judicial activism.

Of course judges have the Constitutional right to rule on laws passed by Congress. But aside from the issue of the limits of scope on their decisions, there is also the fact that there's more than one way to issue a ruling. Judges have lots of options. A judge who believes that the DADT law is unconstitutional does not HAVE to order the military to immediately reverse its policies, begin hiring gays, etc. The decision that was made is clearly not just a ruling on the law at hand, it is taking a specific position on the issue at hand, and forcing immediate enaction of a new policy that reverses the standing policy. This is at best reckless, and at worst, is downright judicial activism and leftwing subversion of the legislative process (and I happen to think that is EXACTLY what this is). If the judge felt this law was unconstitutional, she could just as easily have issued a ruling that does not take any position on the policy issue at hand, and gives Congress a set timetable (say, several months) to enact a new policy and law.

I think everyone understands very well what this whole issue is about. The gay activists want a status of full moral equivalence, open acknowledgement, and legal equality in every societal institution of any importance, from the schools, to the military, to the church. The fact that we as a relatively tolerant society are willing to recognize a basic right to privacy is not good enough. The fact that they already have basic constitutional rights as Americans, including a right to privacy, is also not good enough for them. It's pretty clear that they want to achieve legal, moral, and institutional acceptance of their behavioral choices. And because they haven't been able to get that through the normal channels, they are using the courts to force the issue.

[Alaskapopo]

I have no comment at this time, however, this should come from congress and the president, not some judge

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gays_in_military_recruiting

I disagree the courts are their to make sure that congress and the president follow the constitution and the bill of rights. (by declaring laws unconstitutional if they are.

Your sexual orientation should not affect your employment or your ability to serve your country.
Pat

[Belmont31R]

I disagree the courts are their to make sure that congress and the president follow the constitution and the bill of rights. (by declaring laws unconstitutional if they are.

Your sexual orientation should not affect your employment or your ability to serve your country.
Pat




What about pedos and people who like to have sex with animals?

[Alaskapopo]

What about pedos and people who like to have sex with animals?

That is not a sexual orientaion that is sexual deviance that is illegal. There is a big difference. Are you equating gay people to pedophiles and bestiality. If so that is a very bigoted view. I don't care what happens between consenting adults in the bedroom as long as they do their job.
Pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

What about pedos and people who like to have sex with animals?

Belmont: With all due respect -

That's irrelevant. Those are federal crimes, homosexuality isn't.

However, my view on that is that homosexuals aren't hurting anybody. So dragging paedophiles into the argument is a moot point.

Having sex with another man, isn't the same as molesting a little girl, or a goat.

And I really hope you aren't lumping the two in the same group. As it is a grossly different issue.

However while it's relevant. No, open paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to serve in military service, partially for their safety (I don't want to see a good marine put in prison for murdering somebody in his unit for any reason), and partially because we as a nation do not encourage that.

[Belmont31R]

That is not a sexual orientaion that is sexual deviance that is illegal. There is a big difference. Are you equating gay people to pedophiles and bestiality. If so that is a very bigoted view. I don't care what happens between consenting adults in the bedroom as long as they do their job.
Pat



The point is you can discriminate based on a persons sexual preferences.


We already do with it females not being allowed in combat arms. You don't want people doing stupid things in combat because someone they have a crush on/relationship with is in danger. Or are combat arms going to have to be opened up to gays and females?


Also gays are much more likely to have aids than a straight person (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf) which puts other soldiers at increased risk, and would have to be screened much more often to mitigate the risk...but its still an increased risk.

[Alaskapopo]

The point is you can discriminate based on a persons sexual preferences.


We already do with it females not being allowed in combat arms. You don't want people doing stupid things in combat because someone they have a crush on/relationship with is in danger. Or are combat arms going to have to be opened up to gays and females?


Also gays are much more likely to have aids than a straight person (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf) which puts other soldiers at increased risk, and would have to be screened much more often to mitigate the risk...but its still an increased risk.
Actually no you can't. You mentioned illegal activities. Being gay is not illegal and the court has just told the military they can not longer discriminate.
The aids argument is weak. Don't want it don't sleep with people who have unsafe sex. That simple.

[ALCOAR]

Anybody seen the documentary Outrage...I found it quite eye opening in respect to the amt. of closeted gays in the Republican party that vote for Dont Ask, Dont Tell and every other non gay policy.

I view this subject much like a fart.....the biggest anti gay person is usually indeed the actual gay person. I subscribe to live and let live and if I were in combat and the guy to my left was gay and bullets were flying over our heads I would imagine he is not thinking about hitting on me but rather fending off serious injury or death much like I would be as a hetero.

[Belmont31R]

Oh and I have nothing against gay people, and even think they should be allowed to marry. I do not think allowing them openly in the military is a good idea because its a net negative impact on our ability to fight wars. Allowing them to serve is of no benefit to our military, and there will be negative consequences such as increased risk of HIV transmission, issues I outlined above with peoples feelings getting in the way during battle, barracks/latrine issues, ect. The mission should come first not peoples sensitivities, and allowing open gays in is diminishing our ability to execute the military's mission. Sure we have gays in now but they keep their mouths shut about it, and thats that. Theres nothing we can do about that. Thats not the same thing as them openly serving.


And I don't care about what other countries do with their military. Thats the same type of dumb shit all the socialists do when they bleat about what Europe does, and because Europe does it we should do it here, too. No other country has a military that comes close to ours, and you can say that about our entire country.

[Alaskapopo]

Oh and I have nothing against gay people, and even think they should be allowed to marry. I do not think allowing them openly in the military is a good idea because its a net negative impact on our ability to fight wars. Allowing them to serve is of no benefit to our military, and there will be negative consequences such as increased risk of HIV transmission, issues I outlined above with peoples feelings getting in the way during battle, barracks/latrine issues, ect. The mission should come first not peoples sensitivities, and allowing open gays in is diminishing our ability to execute the military's mission. Sure we have gays in now but they keep their mouths shut about it, and thats that. Theres nothing we can do about that. Thats not the same thing as them openly serving.


And I don't care about what other countries do with their military. Thats the same type of dumb shit all the socialists do when they bleat about what Europe does, and because Europe does it we should do it here, too. No other country has a military that comes close to ours, and you can say that about our entire country.

Allowing them to serve does benefit our military in that we have more able bodied men and women who can fight.
Pat

[Belmont31R]

Actually no you can't. You mentioned illegal activities. Being gay is not illegal and the court has just told the military they can not longer discriminate.
The aids argument is weak. Don't want it don't sleep with people who have unsafe sex. That simple.




So when are women going into combat arms MOS's or is that discrimination, too?


Im not talking about sex. Im talking about combat or training injuries where there is fluid transmission. Gays are much more likely to be HIV carriers, and thats putting other soldiers at increased risk.

[Belmont31R]

Anybody seen the documentary Outrage...I found it quite eye opening in respect to the amt. of closeted gays in the Republican party that vote for Dont Ask, Dont Tell and every other non gay policy.

I view this subject much like a fart.....the biggest anti gay person is usually indeed the actual gay person. I subscribe to live and let live and if I were in combat and the guy to my left was gay and bullets were flying over our heads I would imagine he is not thinking about hitting on me but rather fending off serious injury or death much like I would be as a hetero.


One of the reasons women are not allowed in combat arms units is you don't want people with personal relationships doing dumb shit like putting themselves under unnecessary risk to save their partner which puts other soldiers at risk, too. Has nothing to do with being hit on in combat.

[Belmont31R]

Allowing them to serve does benefit our military in that we have more able bodied men and women who can fight.
Pat




We have no problems filling the ranks as it is now.

[Alaskapopo]

We have no problems filling the ranks as it is now.

Being female is not a sexual orientation. Its off topic. But I do think in the future women will be given the right to fight in combat by the court.
There was a time when I was a homophobe too. Then I ended up training a lesbian on field training. I learned that gays are people too and not to be hated. I have faith that our soldiers are open minded enough and professional enough to allow gays into their ranks without any major incidents or disrupting our combat effectiveness.

[Belmont31R]

Being female is not a sexual orientation. Its off topic. But I do think in the future women will be given the right to fight in combat by the court.
Pat


And our military's ability to complete its given missions will be diminished in the name of being politically correct, and giving in to certain groups so they can be soldiers, too.

[Alaskapopo]

And our military's ability to complete its given missions will be diminished in the name of being politically correct, and giving in to certain groups so they can be soldiers, too.

Your wrong on that one. Your implying that gays will not be as effective fighters and soldiers and there is no cause to believe that is true.
Pat

[Belmont31R]

Your wrong on that one. Your implying that gays will not be as effective fighters and soldiers and there is no cause to believe that is true.
Pat



Im not implying anything. There is very good reasoning in keeping people in relationships from being in combat together, and if you allow gays in you will have to allow that.


Which is the very same reason women are not allow in combat arms MOS's (aside from their hygiene requirements). Or is that policy, in your opinion, flawed too? We should just allow anyone in any unit consequences be damned?

[Alaskapopo]

Im not implying anything. There is very good reasoning in keeping people in relationships from being in combat together, and if you allow gays in you will have to allow that.


Which is the very same reason women are not allow in combat arms MOS's (aside from their hygiene requirements). Or is that policy, in your opinion, flawed too? We should just allow anyone in any unit consequences be damned?

Gays have been serving and there is no evidence of the issues you mention. Same goes for women serving. While they may not be in front line combat they play a vital role in the military and the military's wheels have not grinded to a halt.
Pat

[Todd.K]

If we tried to go to unisex facilities I think most people would understand women being against it, most women don't want to be looked at sexually by a man in a place without privacy. Why is it that if a heterosexual male has those same concerns he must be a homophobe?

[Skyyr]

Gays have been serving and there is no evidence of the issues you mention.

Probably because no one who's openly gay can officially serve. Well there's a brilliant argument: "There's no evidence so it isn't an issue." :rolleyes:

[Thomas M-4]

If we tried to go to unisex facilities I think most people would understand women being against it, most women don't want to be looked at sexually by a man in a place without privacy. Why is it that if a heterosexual male has those same concerns he must be a homophobe?

Exactly

[Palmguy]

Why is it that if a heterosexual male has those same concerns he must be a homophobe?

It seems to me that some people (i.e. ones making such accusations) just have to stumble all over themselves to appear to be PC.

[500grains]

If we tried to go to unisex facilities ...

Next step: Each soldier will have his own private suite with shower and toilet so that .mil does not turn into a live porno show for gays.

[chadbag]

Being female is not a sexual orientation. Its off topic. But I do think in the future women will be given the right to fight in combat by the court.
There was a time when I was a homophobe too. Then I ended up training a lesbian on field training. I learned that gays are people too and not to be hated. I have faith that our soldiers are open minded enough and professional enough to allow gays into their ranks without any major incidents or disrupting our combat effectiveness.

Being against gays serving in the military is not being a "homophobe." And I doubt the people here advocating against gays in the military actually hate gays. I have friends who are gay and I consider them good friends. That does not mean I condone their behavior or everything they do. I am personally not a believer in heterosexual promiscuity either.

Your assumptions about homophobia and "hating gays" reveals a lot...

[Belmont31R]

Gays have been serving and there is no evidence of the issues you mention. Same goes for women serving. While they may not be in front line combat they play a vital role in the military and the military's wheels have not grinded to a halt.
Pat



Maybe because they cannot serve openly?



My experience with women in the military is that they will get pregnant to avoid deployment, and even while deployed. I served in a mix gender unit, and out of all our females most of them ended up pregnant before or during deployment. We had maybe 3 females that were there to actually do their job, and do it well. Having them was an overall detriment to our units ability to do our mission, and it often meant a male having to pull extra weight. No one wanted them on their teams because they could not do the same job as well as a man. For reference I was commo, and was on a 6 man team. Each team could be expected to put up 2-4 15M antennas, and have working equipment in less than an hour from hitting a new spot. This meant running around with 80lb equipment bags, each antenna needed 8 stakes 3 ft long that had to be sledged into the ground, ect. A female was a real liability to accomplishing all this.


With the pregnancy thing that means that often times a team was short on people, and the tax payers got to pay for all the costs. They were then given the choice of an early ETS after the baby was born. So the tax payers are paying for all this, and then don't even get their money's worth out of that soldier. So in my experience females are a negative net gain for the military. But due to political correctness and people's sensitivities we put "the truth" on the back burner. I recall even one time our section sgt (E6 slot) had to talk to the females in my section because they were ****ing tons of people, and they were either going to end up pregnant or diseased.


In fact one female had to be pulled off an out team that was attached to a combat arms unit because she was being harassed over there. Combat arms are better left to all male soldiers, and kept a place where there arent going to be any inter-unit relationships. If you think inviting gays into that type of environment is going to be a benefit to our military then you have another thing coming.

[Belmont31R]

If we tried to go to unisex facilities I think most people would understand women being against it, most women don't want to be looked at sexually by a man in a place without privacy. Why is it that if a heterosexual male has those same concerns he must be a homophobe?



Yep you'll accused of being a gay basher if you don't want to shower, shit, and sleep with gays.

[Alaskapopo]

Probably because no one who's openly gay can officially serve. Well there's a brilliant argument: "There's no evidence so it isn't an issue." :rolleyes:

Are you so naive as to believe that people in a close nit military unit don't know who is gay?:rolleyes: There have been gays serving in the military for years and plenty of people have known who they are.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Maybe because they cannot serve openly?



My experience with women in the military is that they will get pregnant to avoid deployment, and even while deployed. I served in a mix gender unit, and out of all our females most of them ended up pregnant before or during deployment. We had maybe 3 females that were there to actually do their job, and do it well. Having them was an overall detriment to our units ability to do our mission, and it often meant a male having to pull extra weight. No one wanted them on their teams because they could not do the same job as well as a man. For reference I was commo, and was on a 6 man team. Each team could be expected to put up 2-4 15M antennas, and have working equipment in less than an hour from hitting a new spot. This meant running around with 80lb equipment bags, each antenna needed 8 stakes 3 ft long that had to be sledged into the ground, ect. A female was a real liability to accomplishing all this.


With the pregnancy thing that means that often times a team was short on people, and the tax payers got to pay for all the costs. They were then given the choice of an early ETS after the baby was born. So the tax payers are paying for all this, and then don't even get their money's worth out of that soldier. So in my experience females are a negative net gain for the military. But due to political correctness and people's sensitivities we put "the truth" on the back burner. I recall even one time our section sgt (E6 slot) had to talk to the females in my section because they were ****ing tons of people, and they were either going to end up pregnant or diseased.


In fact one female had to be pulled off an out team that was attached to a combat arms unit because she was being harassed over there. Combat arms are better left to all male soldiers, and kept a place where there arent going to be any inter-unit relationships. If you think inviting gays into that type of environment is going to be a benefit to our military then you have another thing coming.

Its un realistic to say a woman can do anything a man can do just as well. There are physical differences that we are both well aware of. Keep the same standard for both. The few women that pass should be able to serve as well as the men. Also allow women to serve in areas where their lack of upper body strength is not an issue. Such as fighter pilots, tank drivers, gunners etc. No one is saying a 120 pound female will make a good Navy Seal. But their are combat jobs they can do.
Pat

[Belmont31R]

Its un realistic to say a woman can do anything a man can do just as well. There are physical differences that we are both well aware of. Keep the same standard for both. The few women that pass should be able to serve as well as the men. Also allow women to serve in areas where their lack of upper body strength is not an issue. Such as fighter pilots, tank drivers, gunners etc. No one is saying a 120 pound female will make a good Navy Seal. But their are combat jobs they can do.
Pat



You have a completely unrealstic view of the dynamics of a combat unit, and combat in general.


I would not feel comfortable with being left in the hands of a female to be pulled out of a wreck, battle damaged, or over turned military vehicle. I would also not trust unit cohesion, discipline, and fighting effectiveness in a combat arms unit that is mixed gendered. Im not sure where your rosy view of things comes from but that sort of shit does not generally turn out well in real life. Im sure we could all come up with an example of a female who served honorably, and did a great job but how many duds are there for every one of those? How many chicks are going to turn up preggers during a deployment leaving a team short a person? How many people are going to die because their female crew member couldn't pull them out of their burning vehicle?


With any of these groups (females, lesbians, gays, ect) you are introducing additional problems into a unit that would not exist without them. Im not going to keep arguing with you about it but it is the truth whether you want to admit it or not. A fighting force made up of a single sexual orientation and gender is going to have less problems than a force made up of mixed sexual orientation. If you do not think that is the case then you simply refuse to listen to the truth, people's experiences, or are just dumb as a box of rocks. I was commo, and it had a negative impact on my unit let alone what it would do to a combat arms unit.

[Thomas M-4]

tank drivers, gunners etc. No one is saying a 120 pound female will make a good Navy Seal. But their are combat jobs they can do.

But at times those personal may be called upon to perform jobs that require them to have the upper body strength. Pulling wounded for instance.

Belmont beat me to it :lol:

[Thomas M-4]

You have a completely unrealstic view of the dynamics of a combat unit, and combat in general.


I would not feel comfortable with being left in the hands of a female to be pulled out of a wreck, battle damaged, or over turned military vehicle. I would also not trust unit cohesion, discipline, and fighting effectiveness in a combat arms unit that is mixed gendered. Im not sure where your rosy view of things comes from but that sort of shit does not generally turn out well in real life. Im sure we could all come up with an example of a female who served honorably, and did a great job but how many duds are there for every one of those? How many chicks are going to turn up preggers during a deployment leaving a team short a person? How many people are going to die because their female crew member couldn't pull them out of their burning vehicle?


With any of these groups (females, lesbians, gays, ect) you are introducing additional problems into a unit that would not exist without them. Im not going to keep arguing with you about it but it is the truth whether you want to admit it or not. A fighting force made up of a single sexual orientation and gender is going to have less problems than a force made up of mixed sexual orientation. If you do not think that is the case then you simply refuse to listen to the truth, people's experiences, or are just dumb as a box of rocks. I was commo, and it had a negative impact on my unit let alone what it would do to a combat arms unit.

Belmont is right I remember back in 96' when most of this stuff was still new seeing females having relationships with DS's during boot camp getting out curtain training requirements :mad:. I am certain some things have changed since then but somethings will never. Remember the age group we are talking about.

[ALCOAR]

FYI...there have been a ton of female aviators who saved the asses of many boots on the ground.

[Belmont31R]

FYI...there have been a ton of female aviators who saved the asses of many boots on the ground.




So? For however many females in the mil who saves someones life there are numerous others who get pregnant to avoid deployment, cost the tax payers money, **** 30 guys, and who don't want to do any work but stand there and look pretty.


The issue with this is theres no way to seperate those who are there to do the work, theres no way to get around the fact females do not have the stamina of males, theres no way to get around the fact females have particular hygeine requirements you cannot ignore, ect. What do you do if you have a female on the rag with all kinds of PMS and cramps? Going to medevac them out of the field every time?


Dont forget the mil is mostly made up of 18-22 year olds with raging hormones, and even if you give a GO out against sex almost every single one of them is going to do it. On my 2nd deployment I was at a FOB with over 100 males and exactly 2 females. Those 2 females, despite being butt ass ugly, could have had a line wrapped around the hall if they were willing. I heard plenty of stories as it was. We also had a ODA on the FOB with us, and they had a smoking hot female civie terp who everyone always oogled over. Our XO was down there with us, and said that particular terp worked for his former unit, and she got a med check which in his words resulted in an STD test that was more positive than negative. One of the SF guys joked with us you don't want to touch it with someone elses pole.


However in the name of being PC we allow women into these positions. There is no way Id sit idly by if I had a daughter who wanted to join. The chances are she is either going to become a matress or get married to the unlucky soul who gets her pregnant. I spent six years AD in a mixed gender unit so I know full well how these types of things going. At best you have a 10% chance of a female not being a whore, getting knocked up, and/or married within her first enlistment. That other 10% is 90% made up of butches no amount of alcohol will fix. Even then there is still a chance. We had a real nasty one that used to have bugs in her hair, and she still ended up pregnant. The "father" was a virgin who got this nasty knocked up on his first ever ****.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I agree with Belmont on every count. But do have something to add.

I like homosexuals. I have many friends who love sweet man-love. But relationships, and combat do not mix. Also there are many homophobes in the military, and it's a safety issue.

Remember that scene in Full Metal Jacket where they beat Pvt. Pyle with the soap?

Yeah, I imagine it would be similar. Maybe worse.

Also: The type of woman who aren't whores or welfare candidates aren't the type of women who join the military.

They go to college and get jobs. Most women who join the military don't want to serve. Men are way more patriotic, and want to do their job in the service than women.

My girlfriend's step-sister is trying to join the Army, because she's about to be evicted from her apartment, doesn't want to get a job, doesn't want to go to college, and the step-mom doesn't want her home.

She is exactly the type of girl you don't want in your unit.

Women, should be nurses, or armorers, or pilots or something.

Some of them are tough as ****ing nails, and they'll be the ones that shine.

I'm not a homophobe, I'm not a sexist, but Belmont is right.

[Alaskapopo]

You have a completely unrealstic view of the dynamics of a combat unit, and combat in general.


I would not feel comfortable with being left in the hands of a female to be pulled out of a wreck, battle damaged, or over turned military vehicle. I would also not trust unit cohesion, discipline, and fighting effectiveness in a combat arms unit that is mixed gendered. Im not sure where your rosy view of things comes from but that sort of shit does not generally turn out well in real life. Im sure we could all come up with an example of a female who served honorably, and did a great job but how many duds are there for every one of those? How many chicks are going to turn up preggers during a deployment leaving a team short a person? How many people are going to die because their female crew member couldn't pull them out of their burning vehicle?


With any of these groups (females, lesbians, gays, ect) you are introducing additional problems into a unit that would not exist without them. Im not going to keep arguing with you about it but it is the truth whether you want to admit it or not. A fighting force made up of a single sexual orientation and gender is going to have less problems than a force made up of mixed sexual orientation. If you do not think that is the case then you simply refuse to listen to the truth, people's experiences, or are just dumb as a box of rocks. I was commo, and it had a negative impact on my unit let alone what it would do to a combat arms unit.

Like it or not you will start having to serve with gays and women. You have every right to your opinion. But history has proven you wrong with women serving and doing well as snipers in the Soviet millitary and with women serving well for Israel. Basically you are stuck in the past with ideals from the past. This is the 21st century wake up and smell the coffee.
Pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

To be honest, Pat.

Those are good examples, but they are a different culture, with different ways of living, and raising their women. Their women (from my limited knowledge) are raised in defence mode because of their country's terrorism problem.

We can't say the same.

I don't really have anything to say about the Russians. Other than that is a pretty brutal country too.

[Alaskapopo]

So? For however many females in the mil who saves someones life there are numerous others who get pregnant to avoid deployment, cost the tax payers money, **** 30 guys, and who don't want to do any work but stand there and look pretty.

.

That is a leadership issue. If your CO's are allowing that to happen shame on them. Also where are you getting you stats for all these women who avoid deployment by getting pregnant. It takes a bit of time to have a baby and planning. I think you are seeing things with bias tinted glasses. (remembering a few cases and presenting it as the majority)

[Alaskapopo]

To be honest, Pat.

Those are good examples, but they are a different culture, with different ways of living, and raising their women. Their women (from my limited knowledge) are raised in defence mode because of their country's terrorism problem.

We can't say the same.

I don't really have anything to say about the Russians. Other than that is a pretty brutal country too.

Like I said before allow women to do the jobs they could do well. Like you mention pilots. There are also other jobs where hand to hand fighting skill is not the most important skill to have.
pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

I don't think Belmont is arguing against women, and homosexuals in the service.

He's arguing about keeping them out of combat units.

Having a service of people who are the same gender and sexuality are going to perform better in the field.

However, there are jobs I think that women, and homosexuals, could do possibly better than a heterosexual man.

Mostly support rules.

[variablebinary]

I don't care if gays serve, but I think DADT should stand.

I don't support soldiers being thrown out because they were "outed". I think that portion of DADT should be overturned.

For me it is all about conduct and military bearing.

If I have to dodge your erection in the shower, you have no business in the military.

If you are some femme twink bitch, you have no business in the military

If you think the military is a great place to cruise, you should have your guts stomped and then be thrown out.

There are plenty of gays serving right now. We've probably all met one, but generally they are left alone and allowed to do their job. Why? Because DADT ensures conduct and military bearing are always in place.

The minute you remove DADT, conduct will become a gray area, that will be contested and challenged by the queerest of the queerest just to wreck morale and advance their agenda.

[Thomas M-4]

Like it or not you will start having to serve with gays and women. You have every right to your opinion. But history has proven you wrong with women serving and doing well as snipers in the Soviet millitary and with women serving well for Israel. Basically you are stuck in the past with ideals from the past. This is the 21st century wake up and smell the coffee.
Pat

Conscript military is different from a Volunteer force. If my memory serves me correct the Russian's fielded entire female units + I would also give a grain of salt to what Russian propaganda puts out.

[CarlosDJackal]

That is a leadership issue. If your CO's are allowing that to happen shame on them. Also where are you getting you stats for all these women who avoid deployment by getting pregnant. It takes a bit of time to have a baby and planning. I think you are seeing things with bias tinted glasses. (remembering a few cases and presenting it as the majority)

Outside of physically isolating these women; what exactly can their leaders do to prevent these POS from doing this?

And this is not as isolated as you say. I know of quite a few former-deployed soldiers who have complained of this very same thing. Some even report that some of these women get abortions as soon as their unit was OCONUS.

I've even heard from female service members who have had to go on successive deployments in place of another pregnant female who somehow got a "miscarriage" as soon as their replacement was out of the country.

His glasses aren't as tinted as you might think. All you have to do is interview various individuals whose unit had to deploy short-handed because of this phenomenon.

[Thomas M-4]

That is a leadership issue. If your CO's are allowing that to happen shame on them. Also where are you getting you stats for all these women who avoid deployment by getting pregnant. It takes a bit of time to have a baby and planning. I think you are seeing things with bias tinted glasses. (remembering a few cases and presenting it as the majority)

Its an issue that was never there before. The military was purposely designed to be efficient combat arm that can be efficiently deployed over seas not a social melting pot. Its bad enough some units don't get the training they should or the equipment they should.That is also a leadership issue but you want to throw on a another never ending mess that absolutely does not pertain to the mission?

[CarlosDJackal]

Like I said before allow women to do the jobs they could do well. Like you mention pilots. There are also other jobs where hand to hand fighting skill is not the most important skill to have.
pat

I disagree - you're the one stuck on the days of old. There are no frontlines in today's combat zone. In today's Assymetric Battefield everyone needs to be able to perform the duties of an Infantryman should someone in their convoy encounter and IED. Even Pilots need to be able to defend their downed aircraft and those who are in it.

Allowing women to "do the jobs they could do well" is precisely the problem. One the one hand people whine that women aren't receiving fair treatment. But in the same breath they think that they should be allowed to "do the jobs they could do well". Never mind what the mission dictates. It's bad enough that the Physical Fitness standards for women is so much lower (which explains why a lot of females fall out of the mandatory runs in Airborne School).

Don't get me wrong, I have female Soldiers in my unit who I would not hesitate to deploy with. But there are also quite a few who I hope that they never send into a combat zone because they will probably get people killed precisely because they are allowed to "do the jobs they could do well" and not the jobs that they should be doing. JM2CW.

[Safetyhit]

But history has proven you wrong with women serving and doing well as snipers in the Soviet millitary and with women serving well for Israel. Basically you are stuck in the past with ideals from the past.


This is a rather compelling, fact based argument. Both Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Nina Lobkovskaya were legends that killed scores of the enemy.

Sure there are some relevant limitations to a womans combat ability, but undoubtedly there are numerous historical examples that show they can come through when needed most. Considering their unique, desperate circumstance Israel would certainly be a good modern day example.

Of course they aren't better suited for hand to hand combat and the like, but history shows they can be worthy and effective.

[Belmont31R]

Like it or not you will start having to serve with gays and women. You have every right to your opinion. But history has proven you wrong with women serving and doing well as snipers in the Soviet millitary and with women serving well for Israel. Basically you are stuck in the past with ideals from the past. This is the 21st century wake up and smell the coffee.
Pat



I did say there are plenty of examples of women who serve honorably. However as a whole I believe they are a negative when the time actually comes when you need them the most.

[Belmont31R]

That is a leadership issue. If your CO's are allowing that to happen shame on them. Also where are you getting you stats for all these women who avoid deployment by getting pregnant. It takes a bit of time to have a baby and planning. I think you are seeing things with bias tinted glasses. (remembering a few cases and presenting it as the majority)



Its not a stat. I served six years in a mixed gendered unit, and based on two deployments the majority of the females do not complete them due to pregnancy.


Yeah I guess my "bias" just made me make up what my experiences have been....you would know better what happened in the units I was in than I would right? :rolleyes:



Edit: Oh and there are no rules against a female getting pregnant in garrison, and she can't be punished for it. In theatre there is GO Number 1 which says no sex or pregnancy but females are rarely punished for getting pregnant. They are shipped home within 24 hrs of a posititive pregnancy test. We had several females get pregnant while deployed.


Of the ones who didn't most of them were worthless anyways, and stuck in duties like being the platoon sgt's "secretary" or some such shit like that. Basically they didn't pull their weight. Even the females who did put effort into their jobs were not as good as having a male on their teams because they didn't have the strength to do the job as well.

[RogerinTPA]

I don't care if gays serve, but I think DADT should stand.

I don't support soldiers being thrown out because they were "outed". I think that portion of DADT should be overturned.

For me it is all about conduct and military bearing.

If I have to dodge your erection in the shower, you have no business in the military.

If you are some femme twink bitch, you have no business in the military

If you think the military is a great place to cruise, you should have your guts stomped and then be thrown out.

There are plenty of gays serving right now. We've probably all met one, but generally they are left alone and allowed to do their job. Why? Because DADT ensures conduct and military bearing are always in place.

The minute you remove DADT, conduct will become a gray area, that will be contested and challenged by the queerest of the queerest just to wreck morale and advance their agenda.

I'm in total agreement VB. Without DADT, "they" will try and push their agenda as far as they can. DADT needs to remain in place for the very reasons that you stated, or else there will be 4 gender preferences to deal with, with separate quarters and shower facilities. Sexual preference should be stated on all military and medical records. Straight troops should be given the opportunity to ""Opt-Out" for the reasons stated.

[montanadave]

So? For however many females in the mil who saves someones life there are numerous others who get pregnant to avoid deployment, cost the tax payers money, **** 30 guys, and who don't want to do any work but stand there and look pretty.


The issue with this is theres no way to seperate those who are there to do the work, theres no way to get around the fact females do not have the stamina of males, theres no way to get around the fact females have particular hygeine requirements you cannot ignore, ect. What do you do if you have a female on the rag with all kinds of PMS and cramps? Going to medevac them out of the field every time?


Dont forget the mil is mostly made up of 18-22 year olds with raging hormones, and even if you give a GO out against sex almost every single one of them is going to do it. On my 2nd deployment I was at a FOB with over 100 males and exactly 2 females. Those 2 females, despite being butt ass ugly, could have had a line wrapped around the hall if they were willing. I heard plenty of stories as it was. We also had a ODA on the FOB with us, and they had a smoking hot female civie terp who everyone always oogled over. Our XO was down there with us, and said that particular terp worked for his former unit, and she got a med check which in his words resulted in an STD test that was more positive than negative. One of the SF guys joked with us you don't want to touch it with someone elses pole.


However in the name of being PC we allow women into these positions. There is no way Id sit idly by if I had a daughter who wanted to join. The chances are she is either going to become a matress or get married to the unlucky soul who gets her pregnant. I spent six years AD in a mixed gender unit so I know full well how these types of things going. At best you have a 10% chance of a female not being a whore, getting knocked up, and/or married within her first enlistment. That other 10% is 90% made up of butches no amount of alcohol will fix. Even then there is still a chance. We had a real nasty one that used to have bugs in her hair, and she still ended up pregnant. The "father" was a virgin who got this nasty knocked up on his first ever ****.

Well, that's about the most vitriolic misogynistic rant I've read in quite some time. Congratulations on a new low.

[Cagemonkey]

So? For however many females in the mil who saves someones life there are numerous others who get pregnant to avoid deployment, cost the tax payers money, **** 30 guys, and who don't want to do any work but stand there and look pretty.


The issue with this is theres no way to seperate those who are there to do the work, theres no way to get around the fact females do not have the stamina of males, theres no way to get around the fact females have particular hygeine requirements you cannot ignore, ect. What do you do if you have a female on the rag with all kinds of PMS and cramps? Going to medevac them out of the field every time?


Dont forget the mil is mostly made up of 18-22 year olds with raging hormones, and even if you give a GO out against sex almost every single one of them is going to do it. On my 2nd deployment I was at a FOB with over 100 males and exactly 2 females. Those 2 females, despite being butt ass ugly, could have had a line wrapped around the hall if they were willing. I heard plenty of stories as it was. We also had a ODA on the FOB with us, and they had a smoking hot female civie terp who everyone always oogled over. Our XO was down there with us, and said that particular terp worked for his former unit, and she got a med check which in his words resulted in an STD test that was more positive than negative. One of the SF guys joked with us you don't want to touch it with someone elses pole.


However in the name of being PC we allow women into these positions. There is no way Id sit idly by if I had a daughter who wanted to join. The chances are she is either going to become a matress or get married to the unlucky soul who gets her pregnant. I spent six years AD in a mixed gender unit so I know full well how these types of things going. At best you have a 10% chance of a female not being a whore, getting knocked up, and/or married within her first enlistment. That other 10% is 90% made up of butches no amount of alcohol will fix. Even then there is still a chance. We had a real nasty one that used to have bugs in her hair, and she still ended up pregnant. The "father" was a virgin who got this nasty knocked up on his first ever ****.Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you. When I was in Oki a bunch of WM's from 7th Comm got busted for Prostitution. NIS caught them because they had huge amounts of money in their Navy Fed accounts. More than an E3 could account for.

[chadbag]

Well, that's about the most vitriolic misogynistic rant I've read in quite some time. Congratulations on a new low.

Truth hurts sometimes. Hiding behind PC does not change reality.

[Belmont31R]

Well, that's about the most vitriolic misogynistic rant I've read in quite some time. Congratulations on a new low.




Whatever. Its the truth, and based on experience.



Whats your experience with serving with females in a military unit both deployed and in garrison?

[montanadave]

Whats your experience with serving with females in a military unit both deployed and in garrison?

Absolutely zero. I am in no position to dispute the veracity of your observations or personal experience.

It was the abusive tone and tenor of your comments towards women that I found objectionable.

I've said my piece and am moving on.

[Belmont31R]

Absolutely zero. I am in no position to dispute the veracity of your observations or personal experience.

It was the abusive tone and tenor of your comments towards women that I found objectionable.

I've said my piece and am moving on.



Abusive? You're right. Im not a polished academic who sits around talking about how smart I am and using big words to appear as such.

[Alaskapopo]

Truth hurts sometimes. Hiding behind PC does not change reality.

Truth does hurt sometimes. But I have not seen any undeniable truth yet in this thread. Just some anecdotal accounts from one man. A man that seems to be very against women in the military, a man who also equated gays with child molesters and bestiality.

[Alaskapopo]

Abusive? You're right. Im not a polished academic who sits around talking about how smart I am and using big words to appear as such.

So now you have a problem with having an education? Its easier for some people to hate I suppose. I too am leaving this thread. I have had about all the bigotry I can handle.
Pat

[bkb0000]

It was the abusive tone and tenor of your comments towards women that I found objectionable.

what a load of crap.. he spoke in plain ****ing english. and though i have no deployment experience with women, i can verify about 90% of what he had to say. the only women i ever met in the military who pull their own weight were medical technicians. period.

but for a blind feminist, the thought that there might be some truth to innate gender disparities causes a mental meltdown.

[bkb0000]

"misogynist" is starting to get tossed around almost as bad as "racist." make a statement that flows against the feminist current, and you're now labeled a woman-hater.

[chadbag]

Truth does hurt sometimes. But I have not seen any undeniable truth yet in this thread.


I guess you weren't paying attention then.


Just some anecdotal accounts from one man. A man that seems to be very against women in the military, a man who also equated gays with child molesters and bestiality.

He did no such thing.

[chadbag]

So now you have a problem with having an education? Its easier for some people to hate I suppose. I too am leaving this thread. I have had about all the bigotry I can handle.
Pat

He never once said he has a problem with education. He just said he was not well polished in his speaking/writing skills.

This is not about hating. And there has not been bigotry on display. About the only thing that can be said is anti-PC speech.

[chadbag]

I find it interesting that those who have no argument fall back on labeling. "misogynist". "bigotry". "hate"

[Belmont31R]

So now you have a problem with having an education? Its easier for some people to hate I suppose. I too am leaving this thread. I have had about all the bigotry I can handle.
Pat




Ok dude. Do you know what an academic is? Its far different than "having an education".



It cheapens your stance when the only argument you can make against me is that Im a bigot and woman hater.

[Alaskapopo]

I guess you weren't paying attention then.



He did no such thing.

YES HE DID. READ THE THREAD. Post 53. You need to pay attention.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Ok dude. Do you know what an academic is? Its far different than "having an education".



It cheapens your stance when the only argument you can make against me is that Im a bigot and woman hater.

Your words define you not me. Also academics are the most educated people in this world. To hate them is to hate education.
Pat

[bkb0000]

YES HE DID. READ THE THREAD. Post 53. You need to pay attention.
Pat

he's a bigot because he made a comparison of sexual deviance to sexual deviance?

you DO understand, Educated, that homosexual sex is, by definition, deviant behavior, right?

[Alaskapopo]

I find it interesting that those who have no argument fall back on labeling. "misogynist". "bigotry". "hate"

Truth hurts I guess.

For people named Bigot and other meanings, see Bigot (disambiguation).
Part of a series of articles on


A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.

The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

[chadbag]

YES HE DID. READ THE THREAD. Post 53. You need to pay attention.
Pat

I read it. He did not equate gays to child molesters and bestiality. He pointed out the logical fallacy that calling someone a bigot because they disagree with gay behavior but then the person calling the other a bigot has no problem with other sexual preference discrimination.

[Belmont31R]

Pregnancy represented the single largest reason for evacuation due to a policy requiring all pregnant soldiers to be administratively redeployed.


Women were 6% of total troop strength and found to be three times more likely to have sick call visits than men.


Approximately 9% of the female soldiers are pregnant at any one time.


Of the 1,737 visits. 77 of these visits demonstrated a positive pregnancy test.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200705/ai_n19431431/?tag=content;col1

[Alaskapopo]

he's a bigot because he made a comparison of sexual deviance to sexual deviance?

you DO understand, Educated, that homosexual sex is, by definition, deviant behavior, right?

No its not at least not in modern medical journals. Now if you quote something form 30 years ago you would be correct.

Read below.

Homosexuality: Sexual mores keep changing according to time and place and what was previously seen as a sexual deviance can become a norm as it gains social acceptance. A recent drastic change occurred in the US when psychiatrists removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders (DSM IV) and certain states even legally sanctioned gay marriages. On the contrary, in countries like India, homosexuality is clubbed along with bestiality (sex with animals) and pedophilia (sex with children) as an “unnatural act” and can attract a jail term of up to ten years under Article 377 of the Indian Criminal Code.

In a survey called “Now for the Truth about Americans and Sex," that was published in Time magazine in 1994, Philip Elmer-Dewitt reported that homosexuality was experienced by 9% of the men, and lesbianism by 4% of the women and they had experimented with it at least at some stage since their puberty.

Read more: Sexual Deviance http://www.medindia.net/patients/patientinfo/sexual-deviance.htm#ixzz13JG5QqV0

[chadbag]

Truth hurts I guess.


Only when its true. Your calling people bigots for disagreeing with gays openly serving in the military instead of actually talking about and discussing the issue has nothing to do with truth.




For people named Bigot and other meanings, see Bigot (disambiguation).
Part of a series of articles on


A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.

The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

[bkb0000]

No its not at least not in modern medical journals. Now if you quote something form 30 years ago you would be correct.
Pat

de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

homosexual sex is, as i said, by definition, deviant behavior.

[Belmont31R]

"The main reason why I did this was my intense desire to maintain my fighting strength any way possible in a very tough and complex mission that includes a drawdown," he told reporters in a conference call Tuesday. "The consequence of them departing early is they're leaving their team, their unit, shorthanded with their special skills."


http://www.king5.com/news/national/General-defends-punishment-for-troops-getting-pregnant-while-deployed-79932162.html

[Alaskapopo]

I read it. He did not equate gays to child molesters and bestiality. He pointed out the logical fallacy that calling someone a bigot because they disagree with gay behavior but then the person calling the other a bigot has no problem with other sexual preference discrimination.

It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension. There is not other way his post could have been read than to equate being gay with being a pedophile or one who practices bestiality.
Anyway I am done this thread is going no where fast. Fortunately the world is moving ahead with equal rights for all. This court decision is proof of that. Its a conservative court that made the ruling as well.
Pat

[Belmont31R]

One in five gay men in the United States has HIV, and almost half of those who carry the virus are unaware that they are infected, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.

The study tested more than 8,000 men in 21 cities in 2008, making it the most comprehensive such research by the CDC. It found that young, sexually active gay men and those in minority groups are least likely to know their health status, even as infection rates are climbing among men who have sex with men, while the rates of other at-risk groups - heterosexuals and intravenous drug users - are falling.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092306828.html




Allowing gays in puts other soldiers at increased risk of coming into contact with an HIV positive person.

[chadbag]

No its not at least not in modern medical journals. Now if you quote something form 30 years ago you would be correct.
Pat

This (what he said) has nothing to do with medical journals and claimed genetic "causes" of homosexuality. Homosexual sex is "abuse" (in the technical sense) of the anus, penis, etc and has nothing to do with how these parts of the body evolved and what their function is in protecting and furthering the organism. It is "deviant" in that these body parts are not being used for what "nature" (as in evolution) intended and for what their biologic function is.

Some homosexuals may have biological causes that lead to hormone imbalances or other biologic "cause" for a tendency to same-sex attraction. Not all homosexuals have this biologic cause. Homosexuality is not caused by genetics or biology. It is a lifestyle choice. SOME homosexuals DO have biological or genetic predisposition to conditions which influence that choice.

[Belmont31R]

It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension. There is not other way his post could have been read than to equate being gay with being a pedophile or one who practices bestiality.
Anyway I am done this thread is going no where fast. Fortunately the world is moving ahead with equal rights for all. This court decision is proof of that. Its a conservative court that made the ruling as well.
Pat



Serving in the military is not a "right".


And no I don't think gays are the same as pedos and goat ****ers. You read into wrong.

Ive stated NUMEROUS times on this very website I have no issues with gays, and even have argued against Chad a couple times about gay marriage in support of it.


Good bye! :cool:

[chadbag]

It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension. There is not other way his post could have been read than to equate being gay with being a pedophile or one who practices bestiality.


au contraire. I have no reading comprehension problems. He never equated gays child sexual attraction or abuse and bestiality practicers. He used a common logical argument.



Anyway I am done this thread is going no where fast. Fortunately the world is moving ahead with equal rights for all. This court decision is proof of that. Its a conservative court that made the ruling as well.
Pat

This court case has nothing to do with equal rights. It has to do with pushing an agenda.

[BAC]

THIS is a criticism that makes more sense to me:


The government said the "sweeping injunction against a duly enacted Act of Congress" was wrong as a matter of law. It is "at odds with basic principles of judicial restraint requiring courts to limit injunctive relief to the parties before the court, and is contrary to decisions of other courts, which have sustained the constitutionality of the statute."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1021-dont-ask-web-20101020,0,1158860.story

That... is huge. Like, government effectively speaking out against case law kinda huge. :eek:


-B