Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: garebear on October 12, 2010, 03:51:31 PM
-
Can't believe there's no thread for this yet, unless I just missed it.
SAN DIEGO – A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.
The injunction goes into effect immediately, said Dan Woods, the attorney who represented the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.
"Don't ask, don't tell, as of today at least, is done, and the government is going to have to do something now to resurrect it," Woods said. "This is an extremely significant, historic decision. Once and for all, this failed policy is stopped. Fortunately now we hope all Americans who wish to serve their country can."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military
-
Who the fuck cares? We have a few DADTers on Getbig. Why can't they be gay and proud in the Armed Forces? Shockwave do you care to expand upon this issue? How do you feel?
-
i just dont get this although ive never been in the military
arent you too busy training, and eating and defending our freedom to ask or tell?
or is the military some big secret party place
-
anyone who IS NOT in the military - that wants to limit who can serve based on sexual preference - can suck one.
If you're in the military, your opinion is relevant. But if you aren't risking your skin - and you want to tell others WHO ARE RISKING THEIR SKIN - who to sex up in bed, that's just sad.
-
anyone who IS NOT in the military - that wants to limit who can serve based on sexual preference - can suck one.
amen
-
This should be decided by the military one way or the other, not the courts.
-
This should be decided by the military one way or the other, not the courts.
Actually this should be decided by congress, constitutionally they are in charge of Military policy, not a federal judge.
-
Blatant homosexuality is incapatable with military service. Many people can tolerate certain groups provided that they don't have to live with them. There isn't a person here on this board that doesn't have some prejudice against one group or another, however in 99.9% of the cases those they don't like won't be in their face 24/7 365. I don't care if some queer medic is patching me up...I just don't need to know anything about his sex life, his boyfriend or whatever....those things will be readily evident if and when DADT becomes a reality. DADT works. Nobody I serve with wants this repealed...I'm finishing deployment 3 in Iraq now.
But the number one reason I don't want this repealed is that the gay agenda in this case is to weaken the US Military and knock a bastion of conservatism down a peg or two. The Left hates the professional military and this is a way to poke us. If you want another rational opinion...try this.
On May 26, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed an amendment to the 2011 defense appropriations bill to repeal Section 654, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which bans homosexual men and women from serving in the U.S. armed forces. Two days later, by a vote of 234-194, the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, bringing the repeal of the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy a step closer to fruition.
That same week, a historic meeting between two of the outspoken voices on both sides of the issue of gays in the military met on stage in Montgomery, Ala. In front of more than 500 military students at Air Command and Staff College, Aaron Belkin from The Palm Center and Elaine Donnelly from the Center of Military Readiness made their cases against DADT.
Both agree that DADT is and has been bad policy from its inception in 1993. Where Belkin advocates a repeal of the gay ban, Donnelly insists that the Defense Department adhere to the tenets of the current law and enforce Congress’ mandate for homosexuals’ ineligibility to serve. Each authored chapters in “Attitudes Aren’t Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in The U.S. Armed Forces,” an Air University publication released earlier this year. The book includes a Palm Center report examining the costs and benefits of overturning the ban, and, from the Center for Military Readiness, a list of more than 1,160 flag and general officers opposed to gays in the military. Additionally, Belkin and colleagues outline a case for the commander in chief to use the current “stop loss” authority to overturn DADT, while Donnelly outlined the case for how such a repeal would foster a shock to the existing military culture that could degrade military readiness...
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/09/4679369
If you don't serve...please kindly keep your social experiment to yourself.
-
Blatant homosexuality is incapatable with military service.
Evidently so too is the ability to spell. :D
How have you been? Glad to see you're safe & sound.
-
subscribing for the humor that is coming.
-
subscribing for the humor that is coming.
Why - do you plan on joing the military now?
-
lol; not any more.
-
Evidently so too is the ability to spell. :D
How have you been? Glad to see you're safe & sound.
incompatible.....I'm fighting a war here Jag...oh wait its not, combat operations are over for Obama told me so. He's the best Obama ever..hugs for everybody...now back to fucking America
-
incompatible.....I'm fighting a war here Jag...oh wait its not, combat operations are over for Obama told me so. He's the best Obama ever..hugs for everybody...now back to fucking America
HH6 - have you been lurking here the past few months?
-
It looks like Strawman, KC and 240 no longer have an excuse not to enlist.
HH6 is 100% correct BTW. The military is not the place for self expression. You fucking losers that equate this garbage decision with desegregation among the races need your heads examined. The comparison isn't even in the same universe. DADT will result in the lowering of morale among soldiers and will have the opposite of its intended effect. What's the over-under on some queer soldier suing because his bunkmates made fun of him, or even worse, how long before some gay marine gets a code red for being gay and dies?
-
I don't think this federal judge has the juridisction to do this, anyway (especially, if you have other district judges that have upheld DADT in similar cases).
The likelihood is that (assuming the DOJ actually does its job), that this goes to a higher court and the ruling gets overturned.
-
this is my question, that no one will answer
again i've never been in the military
i just don't understand what could possibly be wrong with DADT? why would anyone want to ask or tell in the military?
i dont get that?
???
-
this is my question, that no one will answer
again i've never been in the military
i just don't understand what could possibly be wrong with DADT? why would anyone want to ask or tell in the military?
i dont get that?
???
This has nothing to do with that!
gays want to be able to flaut their sexuality openly without repurcution, regasrdless of the impact on the units, without fear of any repurcution or reprimand.
-
gays want to be able to flaut their sexuality openly without repurcution, regasrdless of the impact on the units, without fear of any repurcution or reprimand.
hey Mr Paladino, thanks for posting here :)
-
anyone who IS NOT in the military - that wants to limit who can serve based on sexual preference - can suck one.
If you're in the military, your opinion is relevant. But if you aren't risking your skin - and you want to tell others WHO ARE RISKING THEIR SKIN - who to sex up in bed, that's just sad.
OK,GOOD.Then I dont want some f'n asshole like Joe Biden telling me not to take steroids.He doesnt lift,doesnt play sports,what buisiness is it to him.
Silly point,by your standard no one could speak about anything they werent involved in.What buisiness is it of you if police beat the hell out of blacks,your not a cop and your not black.
-
OK,GOOD.Then I dont want some f'n asshole like Joe Biden telling me not to take steroids.He doesnt lift,doesnt play sports,what buisiness is it to him.
Silly point,by your standard no one could speak about anything they werent involved in.What buisiness is it of you if police beat the hell out of blacks,your not a cop and your not black.
Billy= kicks the shit out of you and then debunks your feeble moral equivalency arguments and annoyingly absurd "non judgemental" attitude.
-
hey Mr Paladino, thanks for posting here :)
Bro - you need to start eating some more and stop taking gay pictures of yourself. Deads, bench, and legs legs. Those legs are looking tiny from what I can tell.
You need like a 2 year bulking phase, shave your head, and man up.
240 - why do you love palin so much?
-
DADT repeal is happening much sooner than it thought it would. It's a sign of progress IMO. It's fucking stupid to have DADT.
-
The funny thing is probably some of the toughest, baddest, front line guys are gay. Here's an example. This guy seems very gay to me but he's probably tougher than anyone in this thread.
-
All these guys could straight up be gay especially the wannabe tough guy in the black shirt and no one would know.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
All these guys could straight up be gay especially the wannabe tough guy in the black shirt and no one would know.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Did you get turned on? :o
-
Nothing has been "repealed." Only Congress can do that.
The only thing that concerns me is Obama could tell the Justice Department to not appeal, which could make the order final. This is something that Congress should have an up or down vote on, after debate.
-
Now your getting into dangerous territory, expecting the government to follow the constitution
-
does DADT apply to straight people as well?
if so, why aren't straight people up in arms about the fact that they can't ask or tell?
???
-
does DADT apply to straight people as well?
if so, why aren't straight people up in arms about the fact that they can't ask or tell?
???
Of course it does, the military used to be able to ask if your were gay before you were allowed to join. Now they just don't ask.
-
Did you get turned on? :o
that was only a 2 minute clip; I prolly would get turned on with at least 5 minutes.
-
Nothing has been "repealed." Only Congress can do that.
The only thing that concerns me is Obama could tell the Justice Department to not appeal, which could make the order final. This is something that Congress should have an up or down vote on, after debate.
That probably won't happen. Team Obama is in enough hot water for not enforcing policy and the laws of the land.
The Obama administration, which is seeking a repeal of the law, nevertheless is expected to appeal a ruling by a California federal judge who declared the policy unconstitutional. The administration is also expected to seek a stay of the judge's injunction Tuesday ordering the military to immediately stop enforcing the ban worldwide.
The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military.
"I think this is the answer," Dellinger said, noting that it would be politically untenable to allow a single district judge to set law for the country in a case that the Supreme Court has not heard. "Let the courts decide, but tell them what you think."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101307092.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101307092.html)
-
That probably won't happen. Team Obama is in enough hot water for not enforcing policy and the laws of the land.
The Obama administration, which is seeking a repeal of the law, nevertheless is expected to appeal a ruling by a California federal judge who declared the policy unconstitutional. The administration is also expected to seek a stay of the judge's injunction Tuesday ordering the military to immediately stop enforcing the ban worldwide.
The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military.
"I think this is the answer," Dellinger said, noting that it would be politically untenable to allow a single district judge to set law for the country in a case that the Supreme Court has not heard. "Let the courts decide, but tell them what you think."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101307092.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101307092.html)
Good.
-
Of course it does, the military used to be able to ask if your were gay before you were allowed to join. Now they just don't ask.
so what would be the big problem with a policy where straight people, gay people, bi people, etc had to keep their mouth shut about sexual orientation?
???
-
so what would be the big problem with a policy where straight people, gay people, bi people, etc had to keep their mouth shut about sexual orientation?
???
Well thats basically what DADT is
-
Well thats basically what DADT is
It also has to do with third persons, often anonymous (or even cops who act as snitches), accusing people of being homosexuals, whether they are or not. That's what I think should change.
Otherwise extravagant and "pride parade" behavior should not be tolerated in the military. A full repeal could lead to ridiculous situations if certain people would act inappropriately (for military standards of conduct) to publicly out themselves.
-
It also has to do with third persons, often anonymous (or even cops who act as snitches), accusing people of being homosexuals, whether they are or not. That's what I think should change.
Otherwise extravagant and "pride parade" behavior should not be tolerated in the military. A full repeal could lead to ridiculous situations if certain people would act inappropriately (for military standards of conduct) to publicly out themselves.
Where this gets really problematic is when all of the groups under the "GLBT" and "gender identity" classifications are included. I don't think a lot of people have really sat down and thought about the implications in a military setting of cross-dressers and whatnot.
-
the new uniform once DADT is gone...
-
the new uniform once DADT is gone...
LOL!! WTF????
Does the vest come in pink?
-
Appeals court keeps military gay policy for now
By Associated Press
POSTED: 01:36 p.m. HST, Oct 20, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says the military should keep in place its "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted the Obama administration's request for a temporary freeze of a California-based federal judge's order telling the military to stop enforcing the policy.
The 1993 law says gays may serve but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.
Government lawyers sought to suspend the ruling while appeals were pending, arguing that it would pose a major problem for the military. They said it could encourage service members to reveal their sexual orientation before the issue is fully decided.
President Barack Obama says he supports repeal of the policy, but only after careful review and an act of Congress.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/Appeals_court_keeps_military_gay_policy_for_now_.html
-
Federal Court Extends Hold on Ruling Against 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Published November 01, 2010 | Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court on Monday indefinitely extended its freeze on a judge's order halting enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, heightening pressure on the Obama administration to persuade the U.S. Senate to repeal the law before a new Congress is sworn in.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the U.S. government's request for a stay while it challenges the trial court's ruling that the ban on openly gay service members is unconstitutional.
The same panel, composed of two judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan and one appointed by President Bill Clinton, on Oct. 20 imposed a temporary hold keeping "don't ask, don't tell" in place.
Monday's decision means gay Americans who disclose their sexual orientations still can't enlist in the armed forces and can be investigated and ultimately discharged if they already are serving.
"We continue to warn service members that it is unsafe to come out as long as this law remains on the books," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
In an eight-page order, two judges said they were persuaded by the Department of Justice's argument that U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' worldwide injunction against the policy "will seriously disrupt ongoing and determined efforts by the Administration to devise an orderly change."
"The public interest in enduring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen -- strongly militates in favor of a stay," Judges Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Stephen S. Trott wrote in their majority order. "Furthermore, if the administration is successful in persuading Congress to eliminate (the policy), this case and controversy will become moot."
Another reason they gave for imposing the freeze was decisions by four other federal appeals courts that cast doubt on whether Phillips exceeded her authority and ignored existing legal precedents when she concluded gays could not serve in the military without having their First Amendment rights breached.
Judge William Fletcher entered a partial dissent, saying he would have preferred the panel had heard oral arguments before granting the stay. Fletcher said he thinks "don't tell, don't tell" should not be used to discharge any existing service members while the case was on appeal.
"Defendants would not be required during the pendency of the appeal to change their recruiting practices, to change their personnel manuals, or, subject only to the requirement that they not actually discharge anyone, otherwise to change their practices," Fletcher said.
President Barack Obama repeatedly has said he opposes "don't ask, don't tell" but favors ending it legislatively instead of through the courts. Over the summer, he worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of a Defense Department review due Dec. 1. The legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate.
The president has pledged to push for another vote during Congress' lame duck session after Tuesday's elections.
"The president claims to want to see 'don't ask, don't tell' ended. It is time that he stop talking and start working to make a real difference for gay and lesbian Americans by pushing for repeal when Congress returns," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that sued to overturn "don't ask, don't tell" in Phillips' court.
The court ordered the government to submit its brief in its broader appeal by Jan. 24 and gave Log Cabin Republicans until Feb. 22 to reply. It did not schedule oral arguments in the case.
"For the reasons stated in the government's submission to the appellate court, we believe the stay is appropriate," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/01/federal-court-extends-hold-ruling-dont-ask-dont-tell/?test=latestnews