Posted on 12/19/2010 12:59:21 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
“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.”
If you read the whole post, you will see that I acknowlege that. Under DADT, only open homosexuals could not serve.
Doubt this is what you’re asking for but I knew a woman aprox. 25 years ago that had joined up out of high school. After a few weeks she was being hit on by her female(?) DI. When she turned her down, the DI persisted and the girl threatened to report the DI’s actions. The DI just laughed it off and said “go ahead, they’ve never done anything to me about it yet. But remember this-if you do, you’ll still have to deal with me!”
This was back when the Army would let you out if you claimed to be a drug user and that’s the ‘out’ she had to take to get away from this horrid dyke.
One has to wonder just how bad it will get now?
What actually bothers me much more than repeal of DADT is the fact that only average Americans are serving to protect our freedom while few of these rich banksters on Wall Street have ever found it in their psyche to serve the nation. They serve themselves.
While average Americans are serving and dying, these @#$%^%’s count their bonus money that they have stolen from us with TARP and via the Fed and now they get a tax cut. Someone needs to start paying for the costs of those fighting for our freedom and it shouldn’t be on the Chinese tab.
I disagree.
There is a war on between good and evil. This is just a battle. Giving up is not an answer.
mark
This whole thing has me baffled....Gates and Mullins claim the courts were gonna overturn DADT anyway. Since when did civilian courts have any say the way the military operates?...Would this have gone to the Supremes had that happened?. Im very sad and confused by all this. Anybody shed any light on this for me?...thx
This whole thing has me baffled....Gates and Mullins claim the courts were gonna overturn DADT anyway. Since when did civilian courts have any say the way the military operates?...Would this have gone to the Supremes had that happened?. Im very sad and confused by all this. Anybody shed any light on this for me?...thx
“What actually bothers me much more than repeal of DADT is the fact that only average Americans are serving to protect our freedom while few of these rich banksters on Wall Street have ever found it in their psyche to serve the nation. They serve themselves.
While average Americans are serving and dying, these @#$%^%’s count their bonus money that they have stolen from us with TARP and via the Fed and now they get a tax cut. Someone needs to start paying for the costs of those fighting for our freedom and it shouldn’t be on the Chinese tab.”
Disagree. I am against repealing DADT. It bothers me a lot.
I am also in favor of Tax cuts. I don’t care the income level of those who get them or whether or nor they are bankers.
as for this commment:
“Someone needs to start paying for the costs of those fighting for our freedom and it shouldn’t be on the Chinese tab.”
Are you suggesting we raise taxes or have a draft? Bad ideas both. Although the repeal of DADT threatens the volunteer army and makes a draft more likely IMHO, which is a bad thing.
I do however agree with you on TARP and the Fed.
Has Palin gone on the record regarding the issue?
Exactly right. Patiently waiting for our new CIC, Sarah Palin. . .
Failure? He´s wreaking the nation on purpose. From his perspective he´s succeeding beyond his wildest dreams.
God will not be mocked. Unless this policy is reversed we will be witness to existential history where a once great army begins to get routed in battles of consequence.
it won’t.
Well, it wasn’t even mentioned in their contract, so there’s nothing really in it that breaks that contract.
This repeal and that UCMJ article are contradictory; wouldn’t the more recent law take precedence?
No, but United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) applies Lawrence v. Texas in a limited way to Art. 125. Is Art. 125 a dead letter because of Lawrence? Not quite, but it's headed there.
US v. Marcum found a right for US service members to non-prejudicial sodomy. In its opinion, the Court laid out a number of instances where Lawrence wouldn't apply to Art. 125 - some of those were non-consensual sodomy, sodomy between an adult and a minor child, and sodomy between a subordinate and superior, which was the circumstance in Marcum's case. The Court affirmed the finding of Marcum's guilt, but only because he was in the chain-of-command of his sexual partner.
With the repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654, it is HIGHLY unlikely (to the point of virtual certainty) that Art. 125 will be applied to homosexuals, so long as they don't fall into any of the aforementioned categories.
The repeal of DADT and Art. 125 are mutually exclusive. One has nothing to do with the other, legally speaking.
Art. 125 applied to both straight and homosexual service members, at least until the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and the relevant case law that sprung from that decision. I describe it in more detail in my post just above.
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.