Gays and generals / Top brass torpedo 'don't ask, don't tell'

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Tuesday, December 16, 2003 | editorial

[Willie Green]

It should come as a shock to no one that three retired military officers, two generals and one admiral, revealed last week that they are gay. What should be surprising is that, despite these and other stellar records, the Pentagon adheres to a policy that prevents known homosexuals from staying in the service.

[FormerLib]

Theologically, there is no difference between justifying slavery based on the Bible, and justifying discrimination against homosexuals based on the Bible.

LOL! What happened, some of you guys forget about God declaring the latter an abomination! We have not and no power on this earth will be able to force us to forget it.

[FormerLib]

I feel a draft coming back and...

Close the door and you'll be fine.

[aristeides]

Never mind about gays. If there's a draft, this time it will have to include women.

[Thud]

Tell that to the "sons of Ham."

And I note that people won't go near my opinion that legally it's over with decriminalization. All they do is utter variants on "unclean, unclean!"

[aristeides]

I think it's possible the unusual deference the Supreme Court has shown to the government in military matters could save the sodomy article in the UCMJ. But I agree with you that it's probably a goner.

Notice they're charging Chaplain Yee with adultery? I imagine that article is not long for this world either.

[FormerLib]

Actually, your arguments concerning the civilian error in decriminalizing this behavior is every bit as unconvincing as your ignoring the word of God; we are unimpressed.

The military must discriminate to be able to do its mission. Too fat? Too old? Physically handicapped? Morally degenerate? Sorry, you do not fit into our military. We cannot have our soldiers having to worry about some sexual degenerate instead of focusing on their mission. The fact that exposure to homosexuals means exposure to their infected blood only serves to put an exclamation point on the end of it all.

No thank, we don't need homosexuals in our military!

But guys such as you are providing us with wonderful support towards getting the marriage amendment passed so that the leftists won't be able to force us to recognize sodomite couplings as "marriage." Keep it up!

[FormerLib]

Notice they're charging Chaplain Yee with adultery?

How perfectly barbaric of them! < moral relativism mode off!

[Thud]

Judicial deference is all that has maintained the status quo so far, but that deference has been rooted in homosexual acts being criminal.

The adultery charge against Yee is pretty good evidence that the other charges against him are weak. The feds desperately want a plea bargain.

Somehow I don't think DOD learned its lesson from the way adultery charges against some female USAF lieutenant cost USAF General Ralston a promotion to JCS Chairman.

[armydoc]

"All soldiers are regularly tested for HIV"

True, however the antibody test can take up to six months to turn positive in an infected individual; that person is infective during that window. That's why you get screened with a questionaire at any blood donor center. Any positive response to a high risk behavior (IVD use, homosexual intercourse) disqualifies you from donation.

This is one of the best reasons to disqualify homosexuals from service. Every servicemember is considered part of the "walking blood bank". During wartime, we have the capability to collect and transfuse fresh, whole blood donated by soldiers. There's no testing in that instance. And, to a homosexual soldier caught in the DADT conundrum, he's not likely to 'fess up when ordered to donate.

[King Black Robe]

How about the disabled? Laws that apply to civilians often have nothing to do with the military. You don't see the military being required to make tanks wheelchair accessible. Lawrence does nothing to change the issue in the military. But I agree with your basic premise that Lawrence was a homerun for gay activits, reaching much further than the Justices were willing to admit in anything other than code language.

[Thud]

Lawyers are trained to take either side on a moment's notice because, among other things, we can end up on the bench in a week. One of the senior prosecutors for Los Angeles gave monthly lectures to police officers on how to word search warrant applications to get by insufficiently suspicious judges. Only he got a quickie appointment as a judge and was immediately assigned by the presiding judge to review search warrants prepared by the very officers who attended his lectures.

My city's "City Engineer" complained to me once that I was causing the city too much trouble on behalf of my developer clients. I floored him by saying the city's problem was not hiring me first. When he stopped gasping, he said he had not expected such a mercenary reply.

My point is that lawyers have to be objective in legal analysis. We must often say the most amazing things with a straight face to win, but we have to weigh the chances of winning with a given argument as honestly as we can.

IMO it will be very, very, difficult to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" alive. It was shaky before Lawrence v. Texas but the odds then were a bit better than 50/50, and that's how the Supremes ruled.

After Lawrence, I put the chances of it going down at four or five to one.

[King Black Robe]

You can keep hoping anyway.

[FormerLib]

The military ban is based upon unit cohesion and morale...

...both of which are incompatible with homosexuals openly serving the military.

And most likely when they are concealed as well.

This pro-homo cheerleader's prattling on about the "legality" to be a sodomite doesn't pass muster. It is legal to be a drunkard! You can buy alcohol all over the place. But being a drunkard will get you drummed out of the service if it renders you unfit for duty. The perversion of homosexuality similarly renders one unfit for duty.

[phelanw]

There have been numerous threads pointing out to you that the Lawrence decision does not necessarily apply to the military, just as many other civilian rights do not guarantee military acceptance. Get off your soap box and read the thread.

[FormerLib]

...I put the chances of it going down at four or five to one.

Interesting choice of words, LOL! Perhaps you're counting on your own odds being the same? I think you've tipped your hand...

...or your wrist, at the very least!

[Viking2002]

Funny that they use the term 'torpedo'. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[happygrl]

BINGo for an astute observation.

[WOSG]

Thanks for your cogent input based on your JAG experience and knowledge.

It should be said simply: The best people to judge the military standards of behavior, discipline, that are most effective are in the DoD. It's really not the call of an editorial writer or other 3rd parties (like me or others) to judge. Also, it should not be a hard concept to grasp that there is no right for anyone to be in the service. The military has the right to select and treat those wanting to serve in a way that most contributes to the military's effectiveness. The policy's pros and cons should be judged on that basis.

Dont Mess with our National Security.

[Thud]

The laws of gravity do not necessarily apply to you either. But that's the way to bet.

[Nakota]

Actually, the correct rank is "Rear Admiral, lower half". (No kidding!)