Well, RC, if you could control your urge to “slurp the pole” (as you so elegantly stated in your Post #35), you wouldn’t have to worry about STD’s.

———————————————————
“The military should not be a social experiment for you idiots. “If they are queer…they shouldn’t be here”…in the military!”

July 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

So, you’re saying you are against the “social experiment” of racially integrating the military back in the 50’s?

#35 – RealityCheck says:

———————————————————
“slurp the pole…got to go!!!!”

July 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Wow, I’ve never heard of a self-avowed heterosexual male wanting to “slurp the pole”. Looks like you’re against your own self being allowed to join the military.

Then again, I’m not all that surprised. It’s common for people to hate gays when they feel some form of same-sex attraction, but are afraid to admit it to anyone, much less themselves.

July 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Some much needed background information left off by this excuse of a poster:

The military is full of people who atttend church/temple/mosque, but that DON’T follow the mores and dictates of their pastor/preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/other. There are just as many, if not more, “Sunday christians” in the military as there are in civilian life.

When I was in the Army, there where 4 people in my unit who attended church on a regular basis. There were 10 others who attended on religious holidays.

Claiming the Bible as your justification for banning gay people is about as logical as complaining about the mess-hall serving bacon, which clearly voilates the Bible’s dietary restrictions.

July 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Just like they polled the active duty military before they eliminated racial segregation?

The military followes rules. Simple change the rules, just like they did on racial segregation and women in combat situations, and the military will follow. Our military is much more competent and professional than most anti-gay people assume.

Maybe I’m missing something, because NO ONE else, anywhere, seems to have noticed that DADT itself provides for waivers:

Section (e) of 10 USC 654 (DADT) states explicitly:

(e) Rule of Construction. – Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that -
… (2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

Obviously, repeal would be best, but unless I am very much mistaken, given this built-in waiver provision, until that happens there is no technical need for any additional legal authority to stop the loss.

My former brother-in-law was a lawyer then a judge in the military. One Christmas he told the story of this Airforce Captain that was discharged. I was astounded by how this worked in the military. Not that a lovers spat resulted in a 3rd party outing but how the military went after the Captain. The military police went to the Captain’s apartment while he was at work and found evidence of a gay lifestyle. I’m guessing that the former lover let the MP in to gather the evidence rather than them breaking in. There was no search warrant. The Captain was promptly dismissed.

My former brother-in-law’s role was as a character witness for the Captain. He defended a soldier under the Captain’s command and testified that the Captain had fully complied with military procedures in the case and that they had a good working relationship as a result. Goodbye Captain.

homosexual conduct is banned by the uniform code of military conduct. its grounds for dishonorable discharge. the uniform code can only be changed by an act of congress. the president, even as command in chief, cannot change the uniform code.

lets also remember that homosexuality is condemned by various religious texts which, unfortunately, a significant population of retrogade protofascists take very seriously. those same people also happen to make up a disproportionate segment of the military, including the highest chains of command. so dont act like its really that shocking for them to condemn it.

but that doesnt mean the president doesnt have the authority to effectively suspend DADT. Title 10 USC 12305 grants the Executive the authority to “suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.”

if that sounds familiar its because its the same law that has been used to extent the enlistment contracts of soliders deploys in the war on terror (they made a movie about it with ryan phillipe!).

Yeah , how about simply telling Obama to say NO ONE can be kicked out of the military for their sexual orientation ; he’s the Commander-In-Chief , isn’t he , for Christ’s sake ?

Don’t ask don’t tell is a policy mandated by federal law. The President is not entitled to rewrite the law.

Two weeks later, the dorm snitch ratted me out for having a Dutch soldier in my room. Then people got sophisticated and decided that we were bisexual. Men started making us offers for threesomes.

It was too much for my friend. I moved off base. We never recovered our friendship. The day after I moved off base, people started talking to me as if nothing ever happened. I told them not to start talking to me now, and to go phuck themselves.

What was so odd about it was that we were both ridiculously heterosexual and dating madly—including men in our unit. We loved to travel and to read. Most of the women in our unit sat in the dorm all weekend, watching Stars and Stripes on television, and wondering where their boyfriends were—two years in Europe and they never went anywhere the unit wasn’t assigned to go.

We knew where they were—downtown, in any nearby city, in the red light district.

In case you don’t remember, the actual nickname for this act is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” But the “Don’t Pursue” part is almost totally forgotten. The so-called humane way to comply with the law is already an option under the law. Service members cannot Tell, their Superiors cannot Ask and unfounded accusations from third parties cannot be Pursued. They can’t even humanely follow their own freaking law.

Patrick Murphy Defends Obama, Vows DADT Repeal
?First Posted: 07-16-09 10:37 AM | Updated: 07-16-09 11:35 AM

Last week, we noted that Pennsylvania Representative and Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy had assumed the role of chief sponsor for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which is the bill that would repeal the longstanding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. At the time, Murphy told his constituents, “I have been speaking out against for many years against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — first as an ROTC cadet, then as a professor at West Point, and later as a candidate and a congressman. To now take the lead on such an important piece of legislation is an honor and a privilege beyond words.” Yesterday, in a live comment chat on AMERICAblog, Murphy answered questions, and spoke on the matter in greater detail.

Murphy came ready to outline his approach to getting the MREA passed:

“I’m a very aggressive person and we have a multi-tiered plan of attack on this. First, I’m meeting one-on-one with all my colleagues in Congress (especially conservative Democrats and reps in tough districts) on both sides of the aisle. Secondly, we’re doing the Voices of Honor Tour going around to hit strategic congressional districts where we can most effect change. If you have an idea for additional places we should visit email me at letthemserve.com. Obviously, I’m working closely with the White House and have been having discussions with the Department of Defense.

”It’s hard to nail down a firm timeline at the moment, but it’s something I want to happen as soon as possible. The key is making sure we have the votes — 218 — to pass it. We’re getting closer every day. Today we’re at 162 and we’re not going to quit until we get it done.”

Asked why President Barack Obama hadn’t done more with his executive authority to repeal the law (for example such as using his stop-loss powers), Murphy defended the president’s approach:

“I think that this is a really tough issue and there have been a lot of calls for the President to do this. I know I mentioned it before, but the President — to his credit — seems not to want to ignore standing law that was passed by the Congress.

“We had a saying at West Point “Take the harder right over the easier wrong.” The President doesn’t want to clearly contradict US law, even though I feel that this law is fundamentally wrong and discriminatory. It shows why Congress needs to change it. We’ve gotten 16 congressmen and women in the first week to come on board, but we’re not stopping until we get the job done. In fact, we just got an additional cosponsor today — so we’re up to 162.”

Frankly, as much as I admire the fight in Murphy’s belly, I think that when it comes to the elocution of first-order principles for elected officials, Murphy hits this on squarely on the head:

“A lot of folks are asking me if this is in the best interests of my political future, especially considering I only won my first election by 0.6%. But too often in Washington people worry about keeping their own seats safe as compared to doing the right thing and bringing about the change our country needs. So in this matter specifically, national security and equality trump political expediency.”

They already did a poll. It asked people in the military if letting gays serve openly would cause them to not re-up or would cause them to leave the military and most of the young people said it wouldn’t matter to them. The only ones it mattered to were the older officers. I say good riddance to them. Most other industrialized nations have gays serving openly, why is it that they can do it without problems but we can’t?