Posted on 09/09/2010 6:56:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I'm going to bed. Too many late nights and early mornings.
If a Federal court can validly decide this matter, then one can by the same logic decide that a President does not meet the Constutional qualifications for office. Both are deeply political questions.
From Dan Woods, lead attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans in his closing arguments.
“We showed that open homosexuals are allowed to service in the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, DoD, and in private contracting firms performing military functions alongside active duty military personnel. The Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces can also be a homosexual.”
Well Woods, none of those people will fight our wars like our military does. The military is an up close and personal business. It is imperative that our fighting units not be degraded by unacceptable behavior that could be the difference between life and death. Homosexuality can and will degraded military unit cohesion because homosexual behavior is not compatible with military service. Most people understand this.
Notice that the pro-homosexual lead attorney thinks that Obama is a gay.
I hear that General Gaylord’s battalion is highly disciplined.
We see that judges are biased, prejudicial, and have schizophrenic logic, especially ones appointed by Democrats.
What exactly does the text of the Constitution have to do with whether or not something is constitutional? You “originalists” don’t understand the power of the Living Constitution and its supremacy to something as backwards and archaic as the actual text of the Constitution.
This is nothing! Wait until she issues a stay preventing war, since it violates due process rights...
Maybe it is different, these days (I don’t think so) but 40 years ago, major chunks of the Constitution did not apply to the military. For instance:
1. First amendment
2. Second amendment (except in a war zone)
3. Unwarranted Search...
DG
MAYBE I am missing something here?
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy actually ALLOWS homosexual practitioners into the military as long as they do not reveal the disorder to anyone. Repealing this absurd head in the sand policy will in essence revert back to what was always the "do ask, do tell" policy...
The judge, as are many leftists, are looney tunes if they think taking away the homosexual loophole doorway into the military somehow establishes a homosexual doorway into the military...
"don't ask, don't tell" is a compromise premised upon "do ask, do tell" -no amount of judicial hand waving does away with that which was compromised...
It’s just more and more bad news for the libs with this election looming.
___________________________________________________________
Gay marriage. Gays in the military. AZ border. Unemployment. Obama’s bowing to the Saudi’s. Obama’s support of the Trade Center Mosque. Obama’s 6 vacations in 6 months. Michelle Obama’s $750,000 a day trip to Spain. Closing down the US offshore wells. Funding Brazilian offshore wells. Not attending church on Sundays. Talking badly about the USA to foreign audiences. Attacking the police before the beer summit. Mishandling the oil spill. 13 trillion dollar deficit. No help to small businesses. Giant payoffs to the financial industry.
I can go on all night.
IF one can not set aside homosexual sex for God and Country we do not need their "service"... These whiners need a swift kick to the curb...
If this is allowed to stand, then it’s time for straight military members to file a sexual discrimination suit based on the fact that they are not allowed to have their wife/husband or girlfriend/boyfriend live in the barracks whereas homos are allowed to pair up.
Seems like the old adage of Judges ruling on the law (especially Constitutionality) are out of favor... They now have to put in their opinions on philosophy, Culture, Cost of Pajamas, Current Events, and anything else that strikes their fancy.
Maybe it’s time to change our system of justice...
I think I misunderstood your previous post(#40). What I meant in my original post was that making it easy for sodomites to openly serve in the military would discourage re-enlistments and encourage desertions. DADT appears designed to be eliminated and make it easier for out of the closet perverts to enter the service. Go back to the old policy: keep ‘em out—period And kick ‘em out when discovered—period. I was in the Army from 1969 to 1971 and having known queers in the same barracks with me would have had me looking nervously over my shoulders the whole time.
-PJ
If I’m not mistaken the military rules still state that homosexuality is not conducive to the military service and once you find out someone is homosexual, they can be removed from service. So if they strike down DADT, the military can now ask and when they tell, the gays can’t join.
This would be fine. If they have to go back to the old law which says they have to ask, they can be kicked out when they tell.
Clinton’s compromise is dead.
The one I was thinking about is "fat people". How long until someone sues and asserts a constitutional right to be fat, and that their civil rights were violated when they were administratively separated for failing military appearance standards? We discharge a LOT more people for their fatness, than we do for the gayness.
If a judge can find a "right to be homosexual" in the USC, they can certainly find a "right to be obese".
There have been a couple of challenges that were decided at the Circuit Court level in the 90s. But, I think those were all cases based on 1A protections, and this is apparently based on 4A and 5A assertion - but I have not yet read the opinion, so I'm not positive. In any event, the defense that the government put on - which I have seen described as "desultory" - does not bode well for a robust appeal. Maybe Justice assumed that the Legislature would act before this case was decided, or heard on appeal, mooting the whole business. Even still, this sets a dangerous precedent for other than homosexual reasons.
This was likley a civil proceeding against the government, not the "military", although DoD is likely named as a defendant. Since a Department of the Government is being sued, the District court has jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.