Don't ask, don't bug me. Obama passes law that everyone can now die serve in the military - thoughts?

Hurray.

Yay!

One more little chink in the wall of bigotry that still lives in America. We lauchhed this experiment in 1787 with passage of the XIV Amendment, Section 1. of which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Popular opinion at that time was that only white males were persons. Everyone else was sort of property of white males. It’s been a long road to recognizing that each wave of immigrants, then the black slaves and women and finally gays are “persons” right along with straight white males. But we keep moving toward the vision articulated in the equality clause.

Well so much for my master plan to weasel out of the draft… :P

LOL

@seazen Please be aware that an extremely small percentage of the brave men and women who volunteer to serve as Defenders of this wonderful country pay the ultimate price.The U. S. has had an ALL VOLUNTEER military since the 1980’s. Of the roughly 1.5 million activity military with less than 10% deployed and less 1% casualties, which includes all wounded and fatalities.

@YARNLADY, if you double check @seazen‘s question he said “can die” not “will die.” Members of the military are very often in harms way so the possibility of “can die” is always there.

@lillycoyote thank you for the clarification

The president of the U.S. does not pass laws. That’s what we have a legislature for.

@Jeruba Great Answer – People make often make this mistake, and I passed right over it.

I’m angry.

I’m angry because it’s ridiculous that people who fought for us could be discharged because someone found out, without regard to their service.

I’m angry because so many people were concerned with the military and thats why the delay – forgetting the entire time that the men and women they spoke to contained gay men and women that were being told “We’re looking out for you” at the same time as they were being told “You are the problem.”

I’m angry because certain people said that they wanted to wait to see what top brass said.

I’m angry because when the brass said “It’s probably fine” those people said “Well, we want a report.”

I’m angry because when the report said it would be okay, those people spun the report in the most ridiculous manner.

I’m angry because all DADT was a rule stating that if it is disclosed that a soldier is gay, they will be discharged. And that all repeal was was a statement that if that was disclosed, they would not be…and that it was turned into a claim that repeal was about having openly gay people in the military.

So you finally did it. After 13,000 have been discharged under the law. And tens of thousands more before that. I’ll say “YAY!” when you apologize for those discharges. When you repay them the lost income, benefits, etc. from those discharges. When you don’t try to coddle bigots – and when you admit that your reluctance to repeal this meant that you were saying that soldiers who were willing to let someone’s sexuality affect their performance in life-threatening situations were, somehow, better soldiers that put aside and hid their personal lives in order to do something that few are willing – risk their lives to protect the freedom of people they don’t even know.

Then I’ll say fucking “YAY!”

While not an important point in and of itself, I fear that this is another battle lost in the Great Culture War.

@Nullo – I don’t understand how this is about the culture war. The fact that it’s about actual war, in fact, makes the statement that this is somehow related to an ethereal “culture war” kind of… well, insert adjective here.

@lillycoyote As a vet of several wars, I do not take it lightly. Thanks. P.s. – always check my grammar and language use first, before jumping to conclusions about my meaning. ESL – English is my second language, more or less, and sometimes I translate an idea and forget the damn modal verbs – which do not exist in Hebrew anyway. In this case, I did indeed say “can” – perhaps I should have said “could” or “might”.

Well, the way you constructed the question makes the grammar a little more difficult to begin with; the “everyone can now die serve” part complicates the verb usage. “Can” now serve would have been right and “could” or “might” die would have been right but combining the two concepts leaves you with no right way to do it, in terms of the verbs, I think. But I knew you didn’t take such things lightly.

And your English is very, very good. I don’t think many people would be able to tell you were an ESLer right off the bat at all. There’s no way to have an accent with the written word. You can tell sometimes that someone is a non-American English “speaker” from the well they spell or from some of the usage, like using the term “maths” instead of “math” as the short term for mathematics. That’s a dead give away that “they are not from around here.”

@Nullo

Yep, and my side’s winning. Better try a little harder next time. ;) As soon as gay marriage is legal in every state, the war will be in the bag.

@iamthemob The Culture War is hardly ethereal. The War overall is an effort to marginalize religion – Christianity in particular – and associated values, and the resistance to that. One front in this conflict is the normalization of homosexuality – that is, getting other people to accept it as normal, right, good, w/e.
Sexual orientation does not hamper one’s ability to fight and die for his country, and if that were all that were at stake, I’d be indifferent. But instead there’s this cultural conflict.

@Nullo

Regardless of whether you’re on one side or another of the homosexuality issue, this can be used to further either agenda, but is about neither.

A person is gay. They serve their country. It is discovered they are gay. They are discharged. It had nothing else to do with their performance, the unit did not care about it, and therefore the only reason for the discharge was the discovery. Now, this person was on the front lines, and the unit has one less soldier.

The above was the effect of DADT. There is nothing in the above that recognizes gay as normal, good, etc. It simply makes it a mandatory discharge. If objectively it has nothing to do with fitness for combat, is there any point to the policy?

Further, we have to look at the reason for it being a dischargable “offense.” If the reasoning is based on religion at all, it cannot be acceptable, as the military is an inherently state entity, and not all religions view sexuality as a moral issue when it comes to the act itself. Therefore, this is the state privileging some religions over others.

So, if you agree that orientation and fitness of service are mutually exclusive, then by necessity you must agree that DADT was a bad policy. The only reason why it seems like a big deal is because of the opposition of it – coming from conservative segments.

It seems, that if this relates to the culture wars, it’s only because the conservatives are making an incredibly inappropriate and inflammatory stance on DADT specifically.

As it speaks to the culture wars, let’s frame the battle correctly. Homosexuals are asking for the same treatment in their relationships as all others. The opposing side finds that offensive, and attempts to limit that. On the other hand, homosexuals are not asking that the rights of anyone on the opposing side be limited on the civil side.

Therefore, one side is stating “treat us the same.” The other says “no…we think what you do is wrong. Therefore, you should be denied these rights.” The response is “believe what you won’t…we think you’re wrong. However, your moral stance is not relevant to equal treatment.”

I am grateful that there is one more place where gay men and women can breathe freely without fear of retaliation or bigotry. It makes it a little easier for all gay men and women to breathe freer.

@Nullo If fighting for bigotry is your idea of culture war, I am very grateful you keep losing. There is a great deal wrong with our culture, but the one thing not on the list is it being too short of unconstitutional discrimination.

@iamthemob As I said, as far as the military goes, it makes no difference. It is the surrounding conflicts that are troublesome. The impact of the policy change is not going to be confined to the military.
The denial of rights in light of wrongdoing is an old, old, old practice, employed for every offense. Offense is determined by the morals and values of the legislating entities.
Different people have different standards for what is right and wrong. I happen to believe that there is an absolute standard that we ought to be adhering to, but I do realize that people are going to do what they think is right, regardless. There are people alive right now who think that it is right and good to eat bits and pieces off of the guy that you just killed when you raided his village so that you can gain the trait associated with the bits. But could you imagine the outcry that there would be if we were to start eating our enemies to gain a tactical advantage?

So yeah, we think that you’re wrong.

@ETpro Bigotry? Hardly.
Homosexual behavior is rather explicitly stated to be sinful in a major religious text. Sin is stated to be a Bad Thing that is bad for you by the same text. Adherents to doctrines derived from that text feel that they ought to make it harder for people to sin, for their own good, and so reach for legislation.
Law is an inherently negative reinforcer.
Incidentally, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter of homosexuality.

To answer you more directly, my idea of a culture war is when two different cultures, with different norms and values and moral standards and yes, practices, struggle for dominance in a given region or population.

@Nullo – comparing homosexuality to eating your enemy is rhetoric, not reason. The point is that the government should not be allowed to regulate or privilege certain behavior over other behavior until it is proven that the behavior is (1) harmful objectively or (2) beneficial objectively. The provision of special rights to one group over another must be supported by clear evidence that it makes us better, and only the specific behavior should be privileged. Therefore, the provision of special rights to heterosexuals over homosexuals must overall be shown to allow for more benefit to society, and if the specific behavior is not related to heterosexuality then it must be given only to the subgroup of heterosexuals that demonstrate the behavior that the government is attempting to incentivize, and not others.

This is the problem. Government legislation that is meant to regulate morality is completely inappropriate if it is not shown that there is an unassailable evidentiary benefit or authority for the morality that is not tainted by prejudice or bias of any sort. Programs intended to do so reasonably that are shown to not work must be revised until they do work. The fact that people have a different idea of what is right or wrong mandates that if there is a dispute where it is unclear who is right, the government cannot choose one side or another. If it does, it is seizing on an authority with the potential for expansion of power in an unforseen manner, for the oppression of the minority by a power majority, etc., etc.

Behavior that is in dispute must be regulated by social, not legal means. Because the Constitution has nothing to say on homosexuality, as you argue above, then neither should federal laws, state laws, etc. because it does have a lot to say about equal treatment. By giving rights to heterosexuals that are denied homosexuals in the way, and not regulating behavior by private individuals that fall under government control (e.g., employers) that does the same, it is implying such an argument into law. Therefore, your statement that it is absent from discussion seems to make a position that anything favoring heterosexuality is, by definition, unreasonable.

I’m not sure if this law in the end will benefit homosexuals (especially men) in a military that is still antigay. I have an ominous feeling bad things will start to happen to them in if they are too “open” about it. I hope I’m wrong here but we’ll find out soon enough. Maybe the military has changed since I was in 15 years ago but I’m not sure.

@Paradox – We don’t have to wait – I’m sure there will be problems. I’m also sure that not everyone who’s gay will, in fact, come out. In fact, I bet few will do so initially.

But it’s like racial integration. Initially, you’ll have incidents. Inevitably and probably soon, you’ll get tolerance. Eventually, you’ll get people saying “We used to do what to them!?!?”

@Nullo So is eating shrimp, shellfish and pork. Likewise to wearking premapress shirts. Anyting of mixed fibers is an abomination worthy of stoning to death.

And there are other major religious texts as well, Who gets to decide what each citizen must comply with? You? We come right back to that pesky document, the Constitution. It specifically forbids religious tests, and sets a wall of separation between church and state. It is fine for you to have your religious convictions, and a Hisidic Jew his, and a Muslim his. It is not fine for you to use the force of law to compell those outside your own faith to comply with it.

I am a recruiter, I will have no problem enlisting a gay into the Marines. As a matter of fact, I would like to be the first Marine recruiter to do so, when we get the green light. Its really no different than elisting any other person. They will have to be screened and forund qualified just the same. I forsee a big influx of homosexual interest up front when we can actually start the elistment process. At least in my service, (cant speak for the others) but interest will die off as soon as the luster of the fact that homosexual applicants can join fades. It will once again go back to what I deal with on a daily basis, not weather one can join, but more so weather one should join, just as it is with anyone. I, as a recruiter, and a local representative for my service, am given the lattitude to screen for what I deem as qualified candidates, not that I would turn away anyone from my service for being homosexual, but I do have the ability to tell someone that they aren’t right for my branch of the military, straight, gay, or otherwise, and I have sent perfectly qualified applicants over to talk to other branches because of the shear fact that I know they will not be successful here. What I don’t want to see, is an openly homosexual person file a discrimination lawsuit because a recruiter told them that they may not be best suited for a particular branch, or are in one way or another disqualified, we know what it takes and what our qualifications are. Keeping in mind that it is actually harder to get into the Marines than it is to get accepted to a four year school nowadays. If an openly homosexual applicant approaches me about an opportunity in the Marines and he/she is what we are looking for, I will not hesititste to give them that opportunity.

Not sure this was a question more than a statement though.