Obama team denies it will delay ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Southern Voice ^ | 11/25/08 | staff

[pray4liberty]

Yet a straight man forced to take a shower with a homosexual man is going to be okay? They either have to have separate showers or face lawsuits.

Good point (smiling wryly) I can hardly wait to see the first ACLU lawsuit on that one. /sarc

[liberalism is suicide]

If Obama’s coming regime *wants* to encourage desertions and resignations, then they couldn’t come up with a better way to do it than make the military fairy-friendly.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

” The marxist thinks DADT applies to his birth certificate.”

BWWAA!!

There is no upside for the military if DADT is repealed.
Obama’s obvious priority is to make the gay community happy,
not to preserve and strengthen the military.

[Lucky Dog]

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” for some sexual perversion practitioner. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue. This term does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer. Any term that merely refers only to a “feeling” is completely irrelevant to voluntary, reasoned behavior in a military unit.)

Any human behavior (excluding autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal or military regulations and restrictions as is any other sexual behavior such as incest, pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

On the other hand, if homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Similarly, if it is a psychosis, it is just as valid for the military to exclude sufferers of this psychosis as any other.

The practical reality:

The military currently and validly excludes known malefactors such as felons and drug abusers because of their negative impact on good order and discipline. Similar negative impact on good order and discipline is also sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

Beyond excluding those whose behavior potentially decreases good order and discipline, the military also excludes certain categories of diseased individuals. There are two reasons for this exclusion.

The first exclusion reason is because of the elevated risk to their fellow service personnel that the presence of these diseased individuals presents. The second is the unnecessary, increase in costs of providing medical care to these individuals and the consequent negative impact to military budgets that this increased care causes.

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other diseases than the normal population. This fact puts homosexual behavior practitioners squarely into the population category to be excluded from military service for both of the reasons cited above.

[melancholy]

efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

yeah, they'll fix the spelling and make it: Don't aKs instead.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Well, just golly! I’m stunned speechless. The Military thinks as I do. Who knew???

I don’t think it’s a right for gays to serve (although I understand those of them who would like to). I’d like to serve, but now I’m too old and when young enough, I’d never have made the physical part of it. Mentally, however, I can only say, “I get it — all of IT.” I love the strategy. I love the discipline. I LOVE IT!!! I grew up that way. I honestly get it.

[calex59]

No, no it didn’t prove they will fight. I proved they will protest churches that will not fight back. If they truly will fight then they would have been picketing black churches. What did they do? They picked on the Mormons. Let them go down to Wrights church of G-d damn America, and let them raise a little he**. They are cowards and they will protest. Fight? I highly doubt they will fight.

[manc]

I am not frigging fuming with the homo’s now

first we go though the constitutional amendments, we get all those signatures and did all the hard work and we passed it in FL.

We go though all of this every time everywhere, do the hard work and in the end the homo’s go to a judge who makes laws up and throws out old laws.

As is the case here in FL now where a judge has just ruled that homo’s can adopt thus getting rid of the law which bans them.
this just after their marriage ban.

Now they want homo’s to share showers with soldiers, marines etc.

I am so mad right now with their agenda.

the fact is the majority do not approve of homo or homo sex, they are looked as perverts, sick ,mental problems etc and they think going to judges and activists makes them normal and we’ll just accept them.

I served for years in the military and no way do I or anyone else want a homo next to me unless he is going to take that round instead of me.

For any homo’s out there reading this or trolling

you are disgusting and your agenda is pissing more and more people off.
I swear that the north east should just leave the union and leave us in peace down here from VA to FL to the Midwest to AK plus they take all their homo’s and liberal loons with them.

[manc]

read my other post above friend

I have just read about a judge stating that the homo ban is not right and thus makes a new law letting homo’s adopt now this just after where we have banned them in FL to get married.

why do we go to all this trouble and they just go and get a judge.

They are making a mockery of this country and the laws of this country.

sick they are sick.

[manc]

Very true

they only care for themselves and their sick twisted agenda.
they are in our faces all the time and I ma fed up of it and fed up of how they make a mockery of our laws by their liberal judges.

Why can’t they all go up to the north east , VT, etc and live there and just leave us be in peace.
Leave us with a country which goes by the law, where judges do not make laws, where their sick agenda will never be accepted.

mad right now

they want marraige, get kids to adopt, teach in schools, in our military

this is just plain sick and our GOP remains quiet for fear of being called a name

screw that, I don’t care no more what they call me I will not sit idly by with these lot and let them push their agenda and I do not let anyone think they are normal either.

I do not want them,do not want to even know any and I do not want to see any of them down here in FL or the south , midwest etc

[manc]

I served and I can tell you I will not ever have an homo in my room, or even in my barracks.

If I had not joined and I knew they did serve then I will not enlist

[Dilbert San Diego]

Maybe they will make the homosexual man go take his showers with the girls. There would be no sex temptation there, if we’re saying having naked people in sight who you are sexually attracted to is the problem.

Or have the men’s room, ladies room, and gay bathrooms.

It is an issue to consider, but the gay activists get all pissed off if anybody brings these issues up. The military is not like the rest of society in certain ways, and that’s why gays had been banned in the first place.

[pray4liberty]

I’d like to serve in the military, but now I am too old to do so. Who do I sue?? /sarc

[Constitutions Grandchild]

I'm certain there's a way to serve the military, even if you're not “in the military”.

I love FR. Yesterday I wrote back and forth with Esquilax. I went home and pulled my son's study manuals off the shelf and looked up the oaths. I was certain my son's oath was to “protect and defend the Constitution” only. Esquilax said that the oath swore an allegiance to the Constitution, the President, Commanding Officers. Well, much to my surprise (never having been in the military), we were both right. Enlisted take the oath Esquilax referred to, and my son took the oath Officers take.

I shall not continue to refresh my son's education on the Constitution, so he will never ask his men to do something counter to the document that preserves us all. Esquilax I thank you and send my love. Learning everyday.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

“I shall not continue to refresh my son’s education on the Constitution, so he will never ask his men to do something counter to the document that preserves us all.”

Um...m, that should have read, “I SHALL CONTINUE...”.

I’m suffering from Thanksgivingitis — still at office with a thousand things to do at home. ;-)

[pray4liberty]

Maybe they will make the homosexual man go take his showers with the girls. There would be no sex temptation there, if we’re saying having naked people in sight who you are sexually attracted to is the problem.

What a recipe for disaster...what if the straight girls are attracted to him? Of course the narcisstic puke would love every minute of it.

If DADT is repealed, then let them have their "gay units," give them their "identifying rainbow patches" and send them out on the worst duty ever. They want to be treated special? No problem.

[pray4liberty]

I was being a little cheeky. Husband, who served for 23+ years, states that it is not a right to serve in the military. It's an obligation one takes on of his/her own free will. Right now, service is voluntary. The only way the gays can (openly) get in is if Congress reinstitutes the draft, requiring mandatory service, and that won't sit well with the anti-war liberal straight community and their kids.

IMHO this is just another way God is pitting one liberal group's interests against another. They are all trying so hard to hold it together, but the truth is the liberal system is collapsing all around them.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Son and I had a talk about it this morning before we left for work (so it was a short talk), but he managed to sum up succinctly the Marines’ position on the subject and why homosexuals cannot serve. It wasn’t preachy, it wasn’t based on personal feelings, it was a simple and direct, “to maintain order and discipline” among the ranks sort of response — no emotion.

You know, I’m starting to “enjoy” hearing him talk again. It’s not as cute as the stuff he used to say at 2 or 3, but it’s certainly as gratifying and infinitely more comforting. It was the years from 11 to 19 that damn-near did me in. ;-)

[Amendment10]

An Obama transition team spokesperson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the decision on how to approach repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, would be made after more experts have joined the Obama administration.

Given that military life stresses teamwork as opposed to individuality, this is ungodly political correctness being shoved down the throats of the military.

[N. Theknow]

Barack "Herpy" 0bama

An irritating prick.