The debate in question, isn't about DADT. But being you brought it back up, it is the MILITARY that has the DADT policy. You keep calling it "Federal Law"; which in it's loosest form is; but other than the military, can you tell me of a company, corporation, Non-Profit, etc... that follows the DADT policy?
State Department also discriminates. Not to the extent of DADT, but on partner benefits.
Companies and do as they like, they are not government entities. You are comparing apples to oranges.
We can argue as much as you want, but the congress and president, indeed has the constitutional right to make such a policy for the military.
Fine, I won't argue with you either. But I'll flat out say, you're completely wrong. Wrong. They do not have the constitutional right. Just as they never had the right to discriminate against people of color or by gender. They don't on sexual orientation. Just because it took so long to be taken care of doesn't make it constitutional till now. It never was. You are wrong.
I will NOT ARGUE WITH ANYONE HERE about whether it's a good, bad, stupid, ********, or anything else policy.
I want to remind you of something. It wasn't long ago on this forum that you supported DADT because you indeed felt that, especially as an 18 year old, that you or others couldn't handle having anyone openly gay in. You did have a problem before. But, like Senator Byrd once was a racist turned advocate, I'll give you credit for making a good change.
Personally, I don't give a rat's butt. But the congress and president have that constitutional right. And as such, if it is to be rescinded, then it needs to be done in the legislative and executive branch. NOT the Judicial branch. And people need to stop saying that the federal courts have all this say so. They DON'T. Not with the military. YES, there is a federal court that is OVER the military's judicial system. And that sure in hell isn't the 9th district court. After the military courts, and reviews, there is the United States Supreme court. That is who has final say in this matter. The Congress, the President, the military courts, and the supreme court.
CC, you may be not agree with how the judicial system has evolved over the last 200+ years, but it has. So, while your governmental philosophy and views on the constitution are yours as you say, the system now does not operate in the utopia you are imagining. The courts DO have authority to do what they did. By your logic, the judicial branch can't rule on anything it didn't make....wait, they CAN'T make anything, they can only rule on what Congress and the Executive do. Again, your logic is circular and unreasonable. The federal courts DO have this say so. They do. With the military. Be grateful there is an appeal process to ensure that some random judge won't rule on a federal statute any way they wish. While you see Judge Phillips in this light, the appeals court will decide if the boundaries were overstepped. I value their judicial opinion more than yours or mine, something about a few decades of legal experience and all.
But I would like to know of a company, corporation, etc... that prescribes to the DADT policy. I'm sure many will argue that IF an employer asked an individual if they were gay, that the individual could sue his butt.
Are you positive on this? Can you find a federal law that protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation?
wiki said:
At the federal level, there is no recognition of same-sex unions and no laws forbidding employment discrimination against LGBT persons. Some states have enacted such laws, however.
Good link on the legal status of gays:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States
In fact, there are no federal laws to protect gay rights in the workforce. The only option is to attempt to twist other statutes like sexual harassment to find justice. Not always a successful strategy....
Just like if a gay was fired because the employer found out s/he was gay. But this is covered NOT by a DADT federal law. It is covered under the multiple anti-discrimination laws. Only the military, via the congress/president, as far as I know, has ever said: "If you tell us you're gay, we'll fire you".
As far as you know. There are employers who have. There are states that have. Can I give you specific cases right now without a google search? No, but they are there.
Regardless, the main point I'm trying to say here, to you CC. You're legal logic is faulty because you base it on your governmental philosophy and interpretation of the constitution. In reality, the federal courts have the jurisdiction to review such laws. The appeals process will rule on whether Judge Phillips was correct in the constitutionality of the law. Notice the argument in the legal realm isn't in regards to the jurisdiction because that is not what is at question in the real world.
The courts are fighting this one out. The Pentagon is preparing plans for integration. The survey leaks are showing that orientation is germane to service. The end of DADT is on its way by way of the courts, the president, or congress. Who really cares at this point who will repeal it, its time to figure out the plan on how to do it. If I was in the Pentagon, I would be having people already on the task of how to implement the repeal so that I was ready whether it was a court action, legislative action, or executive action. I thought we took pride in being prepared? Surely we must be getting ready.
