Posted on 04/16/2009 10:47:58 PM PDT by pissant
I had a friend in college who was caught underage drinking one time too many at a party on campus so they made him go to alcohol abuse group counseling. At the session they had everyone sit in a circle and brainstorm ways they could have fun without drinking. "Take a walk on the beach" and stuff like that were thrown around until my friend raised his hand and suggested "Smoke pot!" Sometimes ya just shouldn't open up the floor to comments!
Supporter of the gay agenda? Nope. Once again (for those with their own agendas) I’m just one pointing out that like it or not there is a real possibility that DADT might change. The discussions will be about the law, the body of law and the constitution and not over what the Bible says or doesn’t say, as many want to frame the legal debate.
When (and if) the law changes, then those who don’t support the change will have to figure out what they’re gonna do and think.
BTW: So, unless everyone in the military who disagrees changing the DADT law should resign and publically make their feeling known or they are all POS-es?
For your SA, here’s Gates’ question and the answer:
Q Sir, Glenn Ritchie.
In view of the president’s request to consider review of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy, what will be Department of Defense’s response, if that’s asked for?
SEC. GATES: Well, we will do what the president tells us to. (Laughter, applause.)
The — there is a law. We will uphold the law. If the law changes, so will our policies. We have begun a dialogue. The chairman and I have begun a dialogue on this with the president. Everybody in this room knows, this is a complex and difficult problem. We have a force that’s under considerable strain right now, with two wars.
The president has been clear about where he wants to go and what he thinks needs to be done. But I think that he is approaching this in a deliberate and cautious manner, so that if we do go down that road, we do it right and we do it in a way that mitigates any down sides, problems that might be associated with it.
From the time President Truman signed the executive order for integration in 1948, it was five years before that process was completed. I’m not saying that’s a model for this, but I’m saying that I believe this is something that needs to be done very, very carefully.
>>There is no ban on gays serving in the military.
Correct.
Gays just are not to brag about their sexual adventures.
And even that would already be covered by the code of conduct.<<
Those who happen to be gay but do not subscribe to the “contemporary gay lifestyle” are free to server in my opinion.
Those who live the lifestyle should only be allowed to serve in separate units. Call it the 69th Raging Queen division.
YES. Any time an immoral order or direction comes down. Big issue, small issue, YES. Defense Secretary or private, YES.
Not going to take the bait, but I do have one question for you? You said: (see, I know how to read comments on FR)
the law is the law and the military policy will be to uphold the law
What law is being discussed here. Did CONgre$$ pass the DADT as a law? I really don't know so this is a legitimate question.
“Why the hell are you posting to me on the comment in question.”
What’s the beef? You agreed w/ Mr. Pissant.
/////////
“What law is being discussed here. Did CONgre$$ pass the DADT as a law?”
10 U.S.C § 654: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
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.