OK... someone education me here on something... since DADT in 1993 replaced an existing policy that expressly forbade homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would the policy not revert back to the pre-DADT condition? I see no language in this bill that speaks to anything other than repeal.
OK... someone educate me here on something... since DADT in 1993 replaced an existing policy that expressly forbade homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would the policy not revert back to the pre-DADT condition? I see no language in this bill that speaks to anything other than repeal.
OK... someone educate me here on something... since DADT in 1993 replaced an existing policy that expressly forbade homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would the policy not revert back to the pre-DADT condition? I see no language in this bill that speaks to anything other than repeal.
I have seen threads where some have said the new law doesn’t REPEAL DADT, but merely gives the Department of Defense the OPTION of repealing it...I can’t really find that in the text, unless we loosely interpret some of the language.
Seems clear to me it has been completely repealed.
The “Defense of Marriage Act” clause of the law is interesting, and I bet will be struck down as unconstitutional by the 9th circuit in about a week.
I have seen threads where some have said the new law doesn’t REPEAL DADT, but merely gives the Department of Defense the OPTION of repealing it...I can’t really find that in the text, unless we loosely interpret some of the language.
Seems clear to me it has been completely repealed.
The “Defense of Marriage Act” clause of the law is interesting, and I bet will be struck down as unconstitutional by the 9th circuit in about a week.
I see nothing striking article 125 of the UCMJ.
Good.
I see nothing striking article 125 of the UCMJ.
Good.
(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Without changes, sodomy is a punishable offense in the UCMJ.
attention : Army recruits
watch out for your drill sergeant
don’t get drilled
I can think of few things more tedious & boring than the subject of these self absorbed people carrying on about their twisted personal habits.
Get on with it already, just don't come anywhere near me.
The fight will continue...some may find interesting...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=242265
Is it just me, or has the DADT issue pretty much fallen off the media’s radar. Even a lot of the conservative sites don’t seem all that interested. Do Americans really think open homosexuality in the military is no big deal? Are conservatives no longer generally interested in social issues?
Well, DADT’s repeal is a major issue for the military. The military will follow orders of course, but this change is going to cause a lot of grief. The Senators who voted for this crap can sleep soundly at night, thinking they’ve righted some great wrong. Oh, how noble and righteous they are, but the military will have to deal with the problems.
Let me lay out some facts. There are many outstanding women serving in the military, but women weren’t added without creating problems that exist to this day. One of the most obvious ones is pregnancy. Women who get pregnant are typically removed from certain career fields for nearly a year. That has a negative affect on their training progression and job experience, at least in their core specialty. Plus, the military has to pick up the tab for the pregnancy as well as cover the workload with fewer people.
Another problem with women in the military: strength. There are many jobs that require a man’s upper body strength, and some women are simply too petite to do all of the tasks. Of course the military generally has equipment available to help with heavy lifting, but men can do the job faster using raw muscle and they don’t require a bunch of support equipment to help them.
Now I’m not demeaning women in the military in any way. Women can serve well in many jobs, and they do. My point is simply that there’s a price to be paid in military readiness for thinking women are no different than men, that they can do all of the same jobs, etc. That price IS paid right now, but it’s under the radar so that most people never know.
The same thing goes for gays in the military. Open homosexuality WILL affect military readiness and be a distraction, but you’ll never hear about it. Why? Because the military controls public relations. Even if the media was interested in something other than the perspective of the poor, downtrodden gays, who would tell them the truth? Even if senior leaders were aware of the disruptions in the lower ranks that don’t make the police blotter, would they speak openly knowing that their careers were on the line? No. Aside from leftist studies from time to time in the future showing how well gays have integrated into the active force, Americans will never know the grief their senators have served up for the military rank and file.
does obama still maintain that gays can’t marry? Why aren’t the gays/libs pounding him (no pun intended) on this?
Placemark.