Spot on Opinion about DADT from Oliver North

[2012mom?]

Well said.

Going beyond the point of whether you would resign your commission if DADT is repealed, SamAca10, I would ask you to consider whether you could serve as a good officer, given the strength of your distaste for serving near homosexuals. As I perceive it, the first duty of a commissioned officer is to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees equality to ALL Americans. Beyond that (using Navy terms), one's obligation is to "Ship, Shipmate, Self," in that order. Can you learn to put the needs of someone else first, even if you think personally that they should not be allowed to serve? If you were in the position to assign punishment or to grant an award to a sailor/soldier under your command, could you be fair to them if you knew that he/she was a homosexual?

Notice that I am NOT trying to argue with your point of view, although I personally disagree with it. Nor am I trying to say that you should not accept a SA appointment. I am, however, trying to remind you that an officer's obligation to his/her troops and unit goes far beyond their personal feelings, attitudes, or religious beliefs.

 

[sprog]

I
Consider the fact that our Constitution, our wonderful founding document, does not concern itself with sex, gender, race, religious, or orientation, but with the equality of man in terms of value.

Actually it does concern itself with race, gender, and religion in several places (Amendments 1, 5, and 14 in text and as extrapolated by the Supreme Court). Nothing on sexual orientation, though.

 

[Pima]

PIMA, I'll grant that homosexual union benefits will be a debate. But in the immediate sense, DOMA specifically defines marriage as man/woman for the purpose of all federal laws, rules, regulations, etc. So in the short term, no gay couples would be getting benefits. I'm sure it will become a political issue, but it will probably be folded more into the larger debate about gay marriage. So yes, it will be an issue, but I don't think in the way you seem to think it will be.

As Flieger and I have stated multiple times, to get a military id card all the military requires is a valid marriage certificate from your HOR, they do not ask for your tax returns or any federal papers.

From what I understand, Federal employees who are gay with a civil union certificate are allowed to place their spouse on their health insurance and allowed to take Family Leave regarding that spouse. The Federal govt recognizes their unions in regards to benefits from an employee standpoint. Thus, DOMA is moot when using it as a defense for not giving benefits, and actually will be the 1st reason why a gay spouse will sue the military since the federal govt recognizes these unions in the work place.

I highly doubt any gay member will sue, but I am sure their spouses will.

2012 is correct, the statement service before self will be drowned into your cranium. This argument of serving with gays reminds me of the movie "A Few Good Men", where in the end the two soldiers were found guilty, and one says I don't understand we didn't do anything wrong, the other guy turns him and says "yes, we did, we were suppose to stick up for him"

 

[TheKnight]

From what I understand, Federal employees who are gay with a civil union certificate are allowed to place their spouse on their health insurance and allowed to take Family Leave regarding that spouse. The Federal govt recognizes their unions in regards to benefits from an employee standpoint. Thus, DOMA is moot when using it as a defense for not giving benefits, and actually will be the 1st reason why a gay spouse will sue the military since the federal govt recognizes these unions in the work place.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (which is the legislation that is currently being considered in Congress as a repeal to DADT) specifically states that DOMA would still apply and that dependents of gay soldiers would not receive benefits.

Also, the law which gives benefits to domestic partners of federal employees specifically states that "federal employee" does not include members of the uniformed services.


Whether or not a gay service member will win said lawsuit is debatable.

 

[Pima]

Also, the law which gives benefits to domestic partners of federal employees specifically states that "federal employee" does not include members of the uniformed services.

There's the pinch! You will see the fight that federal employees are paid through the tax system just like the military. They will argue that the federal employee works for the govt upholding the laws, and that the military works for the govt. Thus, it is unfair that the federal employee has rights that the military members are denied.

Let's take it even one step further...the military member who leaves is allowed credit for military time served regarding federal credit for GS steps. This puts a HUGE DENT in your defense, since they ARE giving a benefit to the military employee. Their time served is used in the calculation of their pay grade. I know this from PERSONAL experience, not only friends, but because Bullet's job is being converted under Obama's new initiative, and his yrs of military service will make a difference in what "STEP" he enters at.

Now let's address your

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (which is the legislation that is currently being considered in Congress as a repeal to DADT) specifically states that DOMA would still apply and that dependents of gay soldiers would not receive benefits.

NOTICE KEY WORDS are Currently being considered...it is not law. Consideration is not on the same playing field as law.

This is going to come off as offensive, and I truly don't want it to be, but the fact and the reality is you are young and are speaking from a theoretical point. You are regurgitating the law without understanding that the loop hole is always the bigger issue.

Let me give you a military example...the winner in CRUD is not the one who hits the ball the hardest, it is the one who understands the finesse of the game. Repealing DADT, when we are discussing the impact on the troops is not about the right to serve openly, it is about the right to get every right that the heterosexual has...aka a KILL!

Good on you for wanting their right to serve openly, but I also hope that you realize a half arse measure will hurt them more. I would prefer to reduce the pain and get a clear cut call than the ref pulling out a dollar bill to see if it traveled 6 inches or no KISS. I don't want interpretation of the rules? DO YOU?

Right now revoking DADT will leave us in interpretation. Married in MA you get rights, but if it is not your HOR they can say NO

 

[TheKnight]

I don't want interpretation of the rules? DO YOU?

Don't get me wrong. I understand the problems that will arise with the repeal of DADT. I'm simply saying that doing nothing would be inappropriate at the moment.

Besides, I have no problem with interpretation.

 

[Pima]

I understand the problems that will arise with the repeal of DADT. I'm simply saying that doing nothing would be inappropriate at the moment.

In other words do something is better than do nothing?

Please...Please...Please...look at the legal issue and remove the emotional rhetoric before you make a decision.

You seem to care more about emotions than how it will effect the legal issue which would cause more emotional damage. This is akin to health care, something is better than nothing, let's ignore the fact that it may cause more harm in the future.

For example, let's play the game homosexuals can openly serve. GREAT...now are YOU actually of the mindset that they will not sue for marital rights if their state acknowledges civil unions? IF you agree that they should have marital rights in the military because they have a piece of paper do you not agree it will cause a fire storm in the military, and cause disruption regarding unit cohesion?

The military is not some organization to be a social experiment. The comment from you " I'm simply saying that doing nothing would be inappropriate at the moment" only leaves me with this response...the Federal Govt should first do the same for EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN. Like I have said over and over again, the easiest route would be for Obama to sign an EO stating homosexual unions are granted the same right as heterosexuals...tell me why he hasn't? Why is there the demand for the military, but not the "real world"? Wouldn't you say the real world had more of an impact than the military regarding homosexuals? Want to make a change...demand the govt to make the change in the "real world", otherwise IMHO you are making the military the scape goat or the guinea pigs.

I am someone who is considered old, and I believe that it is best to get it right the first time, you are propogating do anything regardless, just change it!

 

[sprog]

And that is exactly why psychology is a Social Science and not a Natural Science; it can be bended to fit a society/group's agenda. Should we really be basing our policies and laws off of something that is so inexact and is vacillating?

.

Um, yeah. All laws are pretty much a reflection of societal expectations. The Constituion is "inexact" and has "vacillated" over the two hunderd plus years we've been using it, and that is the supreme law of the land. The fact that it is so subject to interpretation is why we have a Supreme Court.

Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. Psychology is not, although there is certainly crossover. As psychiatry is medicine and not a pure natural science like physics, there are elements which, as I said, are more "art" than science in its practice; however, there is certainly a scientific element involved in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.

 

[TheKnight]

I am someone who is considered old, and I believe that it is best to get it right the first time, you are propogating do anything regardless, just change it!

You're right. I can't argue against what you're saying. It would make more sense, as a nation at large, to allow homosexual unions.

However, seeing as how that won't happen any time soon, I think that at the very least our government should do something to stop those who are homosexuals from getting dismissed from military service.

Perhaps they will sue for marital rights. That's all fine and dandy. However, there are two separate issues here. One issue is how our society views homosexual unions in general.

And the other is whether or not people should be dismissed from their careers based on who they want to sleep with.

 

[vampsoul]

I would most like to see the word "marriage" abolished from law and replaced with some type of wording that simply implies dependence (union, partnership, ect). Then, let individual places of worship decide who they will marry. You as an individual person can determine on a personal level what you consider a legal union and what you consider a union before G-d.

 

[Pima]

However, seeing as how that won't happen any time soon, I think that at the very least our government should do something to stop those who are homosexuals from getting dismissed from military service.

In essence, you would prefer that the military is the social experiment lab rat. You cannot repeal DADT without addressing homosexual unions. If you state that can you please show me how to do it without denying them the same rights as citizens of their HOR. If you recognize their union because their HOR does, what about a homosexual couple from a state like California that does not? I don't see the repeal of DADT anything more than a social experiment test run...in other words testing the waters with a community/society that is not known to be liberal. Caveat: if they just repeal and give no dependent rights.

Homosexual unions can be recognized with the stroke of a pen by President Obama. He can issue an Executive Order. Instead of placing this issue on the table of how to repeal DADT maybe he should step up and sign into law equal rights.

I would most like to see the word "marriage" abolished from law and replaced with some type of wording that simply implies dependence (union, partnership, ect). Then, let individual places of worship decide who they will marry. You as an individual person can determine on a personal level what you consider a legal union and what you consider a union before G-d.

Maybe we should follow the European countries, you go to the courthouse get married there, and then go to the church for your religious ceremony. It is truly a separation of Church and State. In our country our religious affiliations have the ability to officiate as a State sanctioned member. I highly doubt that people would stop having big white weddings just because they went to the courthouse. For many, myself included, it was important that my marriage was blessed in the church.

In the end of the day I think this is equivalent to putting the cart before the horse. The cart being gay homosexuals in the military and the horse being the fed. govt not recognizing homosexual unions. Their unions need to be recognized for the military to move forward without getting caught up in muck.

 

[TheKnight]

In essence, you would prefer that the military is the social experiment lab rat. You cannot repeal DADT without addressing homosexual unions. If you state that you can please show me how to do it without denying them the same rights as citizens of their HOR. If you recognize their union because their HOR does, what about a homosexual couple from a state like California that does not?

Personally, I disagree. At the moment, you have homosexual service members that are being dismissed from service based on that fact. I think there is no problem with stopping that (the dismissal of homosexual service members simply because their gay).

Will other issues arise? Potentially yes. Most like some couple will sue for benefits for their domestic partner.

However, the way I see it is like this:

1. Gays already serve in the military.
2. Gays already don't get benefits for their partners.
3. Repealing DADT will take away the fear of being dismissed.

I think that, for a while, gays will be content with number three that they won't pursue the benefits for their partners right away.

Homosexual unions can be recognized with the stroke of a pen by President Obama. He can issue an Executive Order. Instead of placing this issue on the table of how to repeal DADT maybe he should step up and sign into law equal rights.

He could do that, but (as evidence by States like California, or any state where the population voted down gay marriage) the people at large disagree with recognition of gay unions.

Although, considering that it didn't seem to bother Congress or the President that many Americans didn't want the health care bill passed either, I would imagine that Obama wouldn't care about forcing more unwanted legislation on people.

Maybe we should follow the European countries, you go to the courthouse get married there, and then go to the church for your religious ceremony. It is truly a separation of Church and State. In our country our religious affiliations have the ability to officiate as a State sanctioned member. I highly doubt that people would stop having big white weddings just because they went to the courthouse. For many, myself included, it was important that my marriage was blessed in the church.

What you mention here is, ultimately, the ideal. At least in my opinion. For me, as a religious person, my wedding will have significance because of the religious aspect and ONLY because of the religious aspect. If the government wants to give me benefits for that then that's all good too.

I do believe that if we're really going to have separation of church and state, then the government shouldn't recognize martial unions at all. And if it does, it should recognize all of them (be they straight or gay).

 

[Pima]

Quick question are you AD, parent or cadet?

It does make a difference. AD has seen first hand the DADT program, parents live vicariously through their child and a cadet has yet to see AD.

Personally, I disagree. At the moment, you have homosexual service members that are being dismissed from service based on that fact. I think there is no problem with stopping that (the dismissal of homosexual service members simply because their gay).

DADT stands for DON'T ASK. You cannot ask a military member if they are homosexual. There is a difference between asking and getting caught in the act. Homosexuals are relieved of service because they were caught or told. Rude, Mean or whatever, they know the rules when they sign on the dotted line. That made a logical choice. Nobody said you can't be homosexual, they said we will ignore the elephant in the corner. Obey the regs, and you are clear. FWIW many military members are court martial every yr because of fraternization and adultery.

GOOSE MEET GANDER...GANDER MEET GOOSE!

It is about regulations, beginning, middle and end!

1. Gays already serve in the military.
2. Gays already don't get benefits for their partners.
3. Repealing DADT will take away the fear of being dismissed.

1. Yes they do
2. So we should still make them feel like they are still not equal?
3. Fear is gone regarding dismissal, but that doesn't remove their other battle of equal rights.

Call me old or naive, but I believe many homosexuals won't jump out of the closet in the military because now they are safe regarding court martial.

Will it help them? Absolutely, positively YES! Yet, I also believe that they will crash into a wall and become more frustrated since their rights are being denied as an equal. It is not going to retain great officers with the repeal, instead it is going to lose those officers because they will feel that they are still 2nd class citizens. Yes, they can serve openly, but serving openly is not the end all, typically, acceptance of equal rights is when it comes to work.

 

[Zaphod]

vampsoul - it's okay. Zaphod hasn't finished his law school application yet.

I have entirely too much integrity to ever be a lawyer.

Apologies to usna1985.

 

[Zaphod]

It was a general statement directed at everyone currently actively responding to this topic's posts. I simply believe the "slippery slope" argument is difficult to find creditability in, since both sides can use it equally. No offense was meant.

No offense taken.

However, while I agree that both sides can use it equally, I disagree that it makes the argument less than credible.

 

[sprog]

I have entirely too much integrity to ever be a lawyer.

:

No one ever likes us until they need one of us.

 

[Zaphod]

No one ever likes us until they need one of us.

Yeah, but generally we only need one of you because of another one of you.

All joking aside, I have seriously considered, for quite some time, going to law school since I work in the regulatory compliance side of a highly-regulated industry. It's just that I don't have four years to go to school part-time, only to switch career tracks in what would be my late 40's.

More than one lawyer I've spoken to has also told me not to bother, that it's not like it used to be, and just not worth the hassle.

Oh well. I'm good at what I do, so I'll keep working to be better at it instead of shifting gears this late in life....

 

[sprog]

Yeah, but generally we only need one of you because of another one of you.

All joking aside, I have seriously considered, for quite some time, going to law school since I work in the regulatory compliance side of a highly-regulated industry. It's just that I don't have four years to go to school part-time, only to switch career tracks in what would be my late 40's.

More than one lawyer I've spoken to has also told me not to bother, that it's not like it used to be, and just not worth the hassle.

Oh well. I'm good at what I do, so I'll keep working to be better at it instead of shifting gears this late in life....

A big problem now is the saturation of the legal market. With the economy as it is, even top tier legal grads (Yale/Harvard )aren't getting the plush "Big Law" offers out of law school. I read an ABA article about how hard the Yale grads had it this year, in that there weren't enough of the pristine Manhattan gigs to go around. Cry me a river!! welcome to everyone else's world.

This is off topic for this off topic thread. So I'm done

 

[SamAca10]

I would most like to see the word "marriage" abolished from law and replaced with some type of wording that simply implies dependence (union, partnership, ect). Then, let individual places of worship decide who they will marry. You as an individual person can determine on a personal level what you consider a legal union and what you consider a union before G-d.

This is what I have been saying for the past few posts. If this is going to happen, then Justice's of the Peace need to issue "civil unions" instead of "marriages" because the term marriage, wether you like it or not, DOES have religious connotations in it.

He could do that, but (as evidence by States like California, or any state where the population voted down gay marriage) the people at large disagree with recognition of gay unions.

Although, considering that it didn't seem to bother Congress or the President that many Americans didn't want the health care bill passed either, I would imagine that Obama wouldn't care about forcing more unwanted legislation on people.

This is very true; Obama could issue an executive order, but the importance would be the enforcement over it. Marriage is such a term that is wrapped in religion, and as PIMA said, performed in places of worship, that many churches would disagree and would not follow through with ceremonies (of course, the gay couple could always go to a JP)

However, I think it would be extremely foolish of Obama or the Democratic Party to try and do that, especially now. They have already angered the majority of voters, and an executive order would most likely kill their already slim chances of being re-elected.

If all of this does work out, and gays are allowed to serve openly, you don't think this is going to be factored into the admissions process to a service academy, do you? For instance, if you look at the movement of equality for african americans and women, each now has a factor in the admissions process to increase "diversity" at the Academies. I really don't want the admissions boards to be like "We have a disproportionate amount of gay officers to gay enlisted: we need better representation.

 

[vampsoul]

No one ever likes us until they need one of us.

That's okay sprog. My dad's a lawyer. As he puts it, if lawyers really weren't as needed as they are, then people would put far less time into creating good lawyer jokes.