Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Perhaps some perspective on the policy: Democrat Harry Truman established procedures for discharging homosexuals in the US military (The Uniform Code of Military Justice signed in 1950). Bill Clinton passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," meaning that the Armed Forces could no longer inquire about a recruit's sexual orientation.  Clinton supported this measure due to the harassment and hazing of gay personnel. (Incidentally, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time, the Democrat Sam Nunn, favored the full ban on gays, while his predecessor, Republican Barry Goldwater, favored lifting the ban altogether.  And then you have Nunn's successor, Strom Thurmond...) In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise that allowed homosexuals entry into the US military.  Just as there are a plethora of questions job interviewers cannot legally ask you, the military could not inquire about a person's sexual preference.  The main difference here is the "don't tell" aspect. Like it or not, political change happens incredibly slowly most of the time.  Almost nothing happens overnight.  Just a few months ago, Obama and Congress were considering a new compromise to repealing DADT.   The question is, do you "laud the measure for its conciliation or vilify it for its shortcomings?" For the record, I don't have a problem with DADT going away- I have a huge problem with how it happened. No, you're going to have to forgive me for being dim and not fully understanding what you are saying.   (I get that this is not a partisan Democrats vs. Republicans thing and that LCR is a pro LGBT Republican organisation)    Do you want DADT to go away so that gays cannot serve in the US military or do you want DADT to go away so they can server in the US military?   The "huge problem with how it happend" ... is that a problem in how Clinton passed the legislation, or in how LCR made it unconstitutional?

I think banning gays from serving in the military is outrageous.  I see DADT as a stepping stone for allowing gays to serve without fear (for all the measure's flaws- even 6 years after the passing of DADT, Clinton himself said it was a flawed policy).  But it was progress, and I don't see DADT as the horrific thing so many here see it as.

My problem with how it happened is in my first post on this topic: the judicial system here in the US.  We have a Constitution that places limits on the government.  Yet unelected, government-appointed judges have the power of interpreting the Constitution.  LCR didn't make anything unconstitutional.  Something is either unconstitutional or it isn't.  DADT has been upheld 5 times in federal courts, and now a federal judge in CA has ruled it as unconstitutional.  My problem isn't with this DADT case specifically, but with how unelected judges in this country ultimately hold the trump card and that our checks and balances are an illusion.

Opinions of judicial power usually align with whether or not people agree with the judge's decisions. For example, with all of the conservative criticisms of judicial power, I have never once heard a conservative complain about when judges handed the presidency over to GW Bush in 2000. And Al Gore clearly won the popular vote - there has been no better example of justices using their power to contradict the will of the people. Where was the conservative backlash when the Supreme Court gave corporations the right to make unlimited campaign contributions? No other decision in history has ever edged our country closer to fascism than this. But there were no complaints about judicial power from the right. But now, corruption and private interests is institutionalized as a result.

For some reason this issue of judicial power only reliably surfaces whenever it favors gay rights. Yet, this is precisely the type of scenario that the judicial system is in place for - to defend the rights of those whom the majority would deny...

I don't mean you personally - I mean conservatives, and then only statistically...

JPlanet beat me to the punch on that one.

Oh, yeah, the partisan volleying is absurd. Now the GOP says that if Obama is voted out of office, they will do a criminal investigation as to whether this administration acted unlawfully. When dems threatened this in 2008, Obama said he didn't think it was a constructive path to take. I'm sure we will see a supposedly merciful posturing of this sort if Obama is replaced as well...

Epignosis wrote: I'm just one fellow.  When Bush got elected over Gore I was 18 and more concerned with about a hundred other things instead of politics.  My opinion of judicial power has been taking shape over the past year or so, and has extremely little to do with their making rulings I disagree with...

How do you feel about the ruling that takes limits off of corporate campaign contributions? That was very recent.

Epignosis wrote: ... Honestly, I spend very little of my time thinking about gay people.

All I ask is that what little time you do think of them, is to think of them as equals.

.

jplanet wrote:   Epignosis wrote: ... Honestly, I spend very little of my time thinking about gay people. All I ask is that what little time you do think of them, is to think of them as equals. .

The T wrote: Easy Money wrote: Whats the problem with taking a shower with a gay man, I don't get it, is something bad going to happen? Apparently, gays are unable to control themselves...

Or worse still, they won't find you attractive.

JLocke wrote: I loved your post, man. Thank you for weighing in on the subject.

Thanks!

Did anyone else see that youtube video of the gay/gay friendly soldiers in Afghanistan doing some lady gaga dance routine in their undies (it can be really hot in Afghanistan mind you) with all kinds of incredible firepower at their feet and stacked near by because they can never be too far from their weapons.