Posted on 12/19/2010 12:59:21 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
I know many of us are demoralized over Congress' decision yesterday to repeal the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy which prohibits homosexuals from serving the Armed Forces of the United States. I am particularly saddened to read the comments of those who have children in the Armed Forces now.
I claim no particular expertise in matters military, but decided to do a little research and actually read the statutes in question, both the repeal itself, which is short and the DADT statute from 1994, 10 U.S.C. 654, which is short as well.
Let's start with the DADT statute itself, 10 U.S.C. 654. Recall that this statute was passed in 1994 by Clinton and the Democrat Congress to "soften" the absolute prohibition against homosexuals in the military which had existed and was enforced via discharge of the Service member. Congress had been silent on this issue prior to 1994. The DADT policy did liberalize the law (which is why Clinton was for it), in that it allowed the possibility that closeted homosexuals could serve, as set forth in parts (A)-(D) below:
A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: (1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that— (A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior; (B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
The repeal of DADT does not, insofar as I can see do anything other than restore the status quo ante, that is: It returns the United States Code to silence on the subject of homosexuals in the Armed Forces, other than the prohibition on sodomy in the UCMJ (which applies to both homo and hetero-sexuals), 10 U.S.C. 925. The text of the repeal is very short: It provides:
"(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-
(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking section 654; and
(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d)."
Congress would still need to pass changes in the UCMJ and that would have to be done in the next Congress, which is highly unlikely.
The repeal statute, which is linked above does nothing affirmative to permit homosexuals to serve, and inoint of fact, it states:
"(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act).
(e) No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action."
Of course, Obama is going to change the regulations to permit open homosexuals to serve in the military. Clinton could have done the same thing in 1994, but public opinion dissuaded him and he hid behind DADT as his attempt to split the difference.
The point I am making is that under Article 2, Section 2 the President is the Commander in Chief of the military and, absent some act of Congress pursuant to its power (under Article 1, Section 8, cl. 14) "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces", the President is free as Commander in Chief to set the policy for the Armed Forces. Even absent the sodomy statute, a new President needs to do nothing more than repeal by Executive Order Obama's soon to be promulgated Executive Orders liberalizing the policy and issue new policies defining such conduct as a "General Article offense" incompatible with good order and discipline pursuant to General Article 134 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 934:
"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
So much of the harm Obama and his friends on Capitol Hill have done can be remedied by the expedient of electing a conservative President who puts the military first.
There is no link, only the poster’s claim. I read the vanity and then tried to search for Lieberman+ the section but found nothing. The poster’s name starts with an “a’ aprorios? - someone I don’t know. One poster on the thread is montag213 or something like that. I am still going through the threads.
But, it doesn't do that. They can be in the Armed Forces, and are quite welcome just like anybody else. Its just that they can't be flagrant or conspicuous about it. Now they can.
Thanks for the ping!
Yaelle, I’ve tried to educate you but it won’t take. Below is a list of articles that show without a shadow of a doubt that even allowing homosexuals in the military under the guise of DADT is destructive, and allowing them free reign harms military readiness and morale beyond reapair.
You owe it to yourself and the truth to read the articles below. You’ve supported the homosexual agenda on FR for years and I am sick of it.
Ten Reasons to Oppose an “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military
The Center for Military Readiness ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608259/posts
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
The Center for Military Readiness ^ | 3/22/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608228/posts
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
FRC ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts
In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
CMR ^ | July 23, 2008 | Elaine Donnelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635458/posts
“MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635350/posts
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
“1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings,...”
My guess is that if anyone complains about advances from a homosexual, that person will be charged with a “hate crime”since homosexuals now will rule the roost.
You agree that homosexuals in the military do no harm?????
Read the links I just posted. They are already causing harm even under DADT!
Read the earlier post, there is an ongoing thread for you to read.
Animals in the animal kingdom are smarter than humans. You don’t find sodomy among the male animals or females animals trying to have sex with another female.
I read all the posts.
I still don’t understand what you’re saying, just asking for clarification.
This trend will continue as long as the U.S. military is seen as little more than a tool for achieving political aims and engaging in stupid nation-building campaigns all over the world.
Simple? Leftist actions don’t have simple solutions, and they tend to get more and more complicated, each and every year that they continue to exist! Look at the worsening of political correctness, affirmative action, activist judges,...! What a mess for everybody!
Thanks, onyx. The only silver lining to the DADT repeal is that it looks like it may scuttle the START Treaty. Graham, McConnell and I believe Corker who were leaning in favor of it have come out against it based on the ram through of DADT repeal. Palin, as President, could reverse or modify any regulation of Obama concerning gays in the military, so the damage would be limited and short term.
But START would tie her hands on crucial national security issues governing missile defense and modernization of our nuclear arsenal, since a treaty has the force not just of legislation, but of the Constitution.
You’re wrong. I’ve had dogs all my life (all female). And some of the girl dogs try to hump other dogs - it’s also a sign of dominance. I’ve seen boy dogs hump boy dogs, too.
Why, are you aware of any enlistment contracts that have conditional provisions for DADT? I'm sure not.
The Court has long held that there are no implicit conditions of enlistment found in DoD Form 4 - ENLISTMENT/REENLISTMENT DOCUMENT ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, more commonly referred to as the Enlistment Contract. On said contract, there is a section labeled, Section B Agreements. Essentially, if a certain condition of enlistment it's not explicitly documented in that section, the government cannot be a breach of contract. In the US military, there are virtually no immutable terms of service, beyond what is expressly declared in that Enlistment Contract.
If you think that people will be able to sue in federal court to breach their enlistment contract because DADT was repealed, please call me - I have some prime real estate I'd like to sell you.
Stopped reading at the first sentence since it’s a lie. NOTHING prevents homosexual’s from serving. They are serving.
So go blow your propaganda elsewhere, eh?
‘I know many of us are demoralized over Congress’ decision yesterday to repeal the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” policy which prohibits homosexuals from serving the Armed Forces of the United States. ‘
Complete lie.
“...open faggots in the military will be hell.”
Indeed it will. Unfortunately, this bell cannot be un-rung. They’re here to stay.
AMERICA.........RIP.
This is correct.
Before the 1994 statute, the military policy on gays was just like every other military personnel policy — a matter of regulations written by the military departments with DOD setting the standards.
Without a statute, the SECDEF still has the authority to establish and enforce military personnel policies, including accession and retention standards.
So, yes, a new Commander in Chief is necessary. And a new SECDEF in the interim, too. It’s inexplicable that Robert Gates seems to have had no higher priority than to get homosexuals into the military during his tenure.
Good riddance, Mr. Gates. I have a feeling we’ll be finding out soon what you’re real agenda has been.
BTW, what is the net effect of repealing DADT? What can a homosexual in the military do that he/she can’t do now, save for coming out of the closet? How will their life in the military change?
“Stopped reading at the first sentence”
It is clear from the entire post that I meant “open homosexuals” but since you did not read it you didn’t get the point. You just jumped to a conclusion and labeled me a propagandist and a liar, both of which are slanders.
I didn’t ping you. Don’t post to me again.
I skipped past it three times because I had forgotten the poster titled it "Dream Act - A lesson for us".
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.