Posted on 10/12/2010 12:44:14 PM PDT by SmithL
Federal judge issues nationwide injunction stopping enforcement
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
ONE more court the new Congress had better DEFUND. No money, no court, no judge. Out of work liberal lawyer.
I don’t know what Romney would do; with Obama, it is a good chance he will not act on the appeal.
The military should quietly not comply and let they gays sue them in court if Obama does not act. By that time it will be a new Congress and likely Obama would be out of office before the dust settles.
it's not like the US military is just another government agency
On the other hand perhaps next some judge will demand the US cease and desist military operations in Afghanistan until it can provide accommodations for LGBT’s - wouldn't that be rich
Time to break up the 9th Circus court of of appeals into THREE units.
There are many, many reasons why homosexuals should not be in the military.
They forcibly rape other men.
They have a high rate of AIDS which often cannot be detected for 6 months, but can still be infective, and the military is well known for situations where people bleed on each other and may need emergency blood transfusions.
Normal men and women are very uncomfortable around memebers of their same sex who are lusting after them. I can attest personally to this. ANd in the forced close quarters in the military, this is a recipe for disaster.
It will destroy morale for the above reasons and also because superiors may have sex dealings with their subordinates which will create another sort of hell.
Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous and cannot control their urges, more hell.
Finally, homosexuality is a mental illness and moral and character failing and as such, those who identify as homosexuals should not be permitted to serve in the military.
Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right.
And women should have their own units (or whatever the right terminology is), as they used to have. Immorality between men and women isn’t good either. Any woman getting pregnant out of marriage should receive a dishonorable discharge, IMO. Adultery is an offense according to military law (again, I don’t know the right terminology) and should be punished if that is military code of Justice.
And the judiciary checks the actions of Congress. Legislation is not immune to judicial review just because it applies to the military. Believe me, you do not want to give Congress a way to pass laws without the threat of judicial scrutiny, especially when it comes to the military. The imagined "threat" of homosexuals openly serving is nothing compared to what Congress and the Executive would do with the Armed Forces if not shackled by the Constitution and the interpreters of laws.
OK, Smith. Right now male and female soldiers are mating like rabbits in barracks in Iraq and nothing is being done until the female gets pregnant at which time she is sent home and honorably discharged. I know three instances of that happening in one unit during one tour, so I suspect it is commonplace. So, you mean to tell me that the service would suffer more if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve? Why not enforce regs against sexual contact between soldiers without regard for gender and stay out of their heads? If they wish to serve, let them and demand they and all others keep their sexual proclivities outside of their service? Genital contact is not necessary for military service, regardless of preference.
I think stuff like this will energize people against leftist policy and enforcers. Make the Nov tsunami even bigger.
That entire post is ridiculously bigoted to the point of being humorous. If that was you intent, bravo. Everything you ascribed to EVERY homosexual can also be ascribed to many heterosexuals. There are many homosexuals serving today with honor. All recruits should be treated equally and required to live by the military code which means banning sexual contact between soldiers and punishing those guilty of adultery. They ignore it now and it is extremely hypocritical for the brass to object on the grounds of morality-— or morale-— when there is rampant adultery and pregnancy outside of marriage in the ranks, ESPECIALLY in war zones!
modern history pretty much prooves that homosexuals have no place in the military. when you have to share bunks in shifts and only have communal showers, that is the last place for homosexuals.
It is a behavior not a trait.
Homosexuality is a mental illness and does not belong in the military. It is a destructive behavior.
I bet 0bama won't do a thing to resist this, but will be glad to point to someone else to take any heat for a decision he'd love to make himself (but if he did people would actually criticize him in public).
So I’m guessing that the title “Commander-in-Chief” is just an honorific.
Just because sexual activity which is against the military code of Justice is ignored is not a good reason to allow even worse violations.
Most current and retired mil do NOT want open homosexuals in the militray, DADT is bad enough. That does need to be repealed, and back to the previous standard - ask, and if the answer is wrong, out the door.
You cleverly avoided the fact that homosexuality is a mental illness and the mentally ill should not be serving in the miltary.
So you think it’s “bigoted” to tell the truth about homosexuality.
That’s very revealing.
Are you a homosexual? BTW, I am not.
What are you babbling about? Twenty percent of heterosexuals have HIV in urban areas or anywhere else? No, they don't. Heterosexuals are 19 times more likely to get HIV worldwide? No, that would be homosexual males. Sixty-five percent of syphilis are accounted for by heterosexuals in the US in 2008? No, homosexual males accounted for that percent despite being one to two percent of the population.
And, heterosexuals shouldn't have to shower, undress, sleep in the same quarters or share a foxhole with someone that might have unwanted sexual attraction to them.
Allowing homosexuals in the military guarantees more sexual activity, more STDs and more sexual harassment and assault. That is what happens when a sexual element is interjected into the military.
You just supported my statement, Sparky. I don’t dispute your stats on illness associated with the practice, but it clearly isn’t true for ALL, now is it? So is it fair to ascribe behavior to all that is true for some? Of course I know this is America where fairness and equal opportunity for individuals is a principle long forgotten.
When the military takes its honor code seriously, I’ll take it seriously. It’s a joke as it stands now, and I know it for a fact. The minority of honorable, upstanding members are tainted by the majority who are among the worst you will ever meet. I’ve spent time in both arenas and have my own experience to back me up. It’s laughable to hear military object on moral grounds. The right thing to do is to enforce strict standards of conduct regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Your service and behavior should be all that matters.
But in reality, he main reason to object to homosexuals in the military isn’t morality, it’s legal. They will become another protected class that can’t be reprimanded, criticized, demoted, etc. without the commander being investigated for discrimination, harassment, etc.
To ascribe bad behavior to any individual based upon the general behavior of a group to which they may be assigned is bigoted and small minded. Sort of like insinuating someone is in some group of which you do not approve as a substitute for reasoned argument.
The facts are that the homosexual life is dangerous and unhealthy and such people need psychological help. They do not belong in the military. My position is called “bigorty” by homosexuals, that’s why I asked you.
My statements of fact about homosexuality have nothing to do with my personal opinion or approval. Facts are facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.