| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Judge orders Air Force to reinstate officer forced out by 'don't ask, don't tell' |
| 2010-09-25 |
| More legislation from the liberal bench. From a financial aspect alone, this will be litigation bonanza for lawyers as gays (and anyone claiming to be gay) seek reinstatement, backpay, retirement, medical coverage, awards for damages and discrimination, etc. Tough road ahead for the taxpayer and the military services I'm afraid. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #11 The are completing a survey of Active Duty personnel concerning gays in the Military. I am pretty sure the answer is "don't care" but how/where do we house and treat the gay lifestyle. If Sgt Bob gets together with Civilian Dave do they get housing? If Bob is single does he get a male/female/or gay roommate? I would be interedted as to how the "integrated" countries deal with this. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2010-09-25 23:46 |
| #10 the policy is actually - Don't Ask, Don't tell, and Don't Pursue - I don't know everything about this case but if someone pursued her based on a rumor that could backfire. Letting gay folks serve openly is just stupid. So sick of the anectdotal emotional blithering of liberals and out of touch general officers on this one. Go the fuck away. The military is not a social experiment. Another stupid liberal line of rhetoric is equating DADT to the civil rights movement - many of my black Marines would love to hear how being gay (a sexual behavior) is some how congruent to a person's skin color. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-09-25 20:42 |
| #9 congrats Rambler to both you and your son. You should be proud (I'm sure you don't need my assurance :-)) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-09-25 19:49 |
| #8 Congratulations on your son's commission, Rambler! May it bring him even more satisfaction than he had hoped. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-09-25 18:56 |
| #7 Exactly, Mike. People complain about the eeeevil homophobic military. It is CONGRESS who passed DADT. As a Navy veteran, I am opposed to openly gay people serving in the military. In the civilian world, it doesn't matter to me who people screw around with on their own time. In the military, especially in close quarters like aboard ship, it does, because you don't go home at night when you are under way. Having openly gay people aboard a ship can lead to all kinds of problems. My son is a newly commissioned Air Force officer. We were discussing DADT. He said it doesn't matter to him, as long as they do their job. I pointed out that right now he is stationed stateside, and the work he does is essentially like an office job in the civilian world. He used to be a Marine, and I asked how he would have felt about openly gay people serving with him in the field. His response was "Hmmm". |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2010-09-25 17:00 |
| #6 A federal court messing with the internal discipline of federal armed services sounds as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as all get-out. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-09-25 16:53 |
| #5 ...Ain't happening, and the judge knows it. He's showing off what a good lib he is, even though he knows she ain't going back any time soon - the reports of how he was crying when he read his decision and how he praised the plaintiff tells me that there was absolutely no attempt at impartiality here. Reality check: Major Witt better not be holding her breath to get back in, because if she waits until Congress changes the rules she'll be the same shade of blue as her uniform used to be. And there will be no back anything unless Congress says so...and that ain't happening either. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2010-09-25 13:14 |
| #4 So.. umm... How many divisions does this judge have again? At some point someone in the executive is going to have to tell the judiciary to go piss up a rope. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-09-25 10:08 |
| #3 Steve, 'Social Justice' trumps the Constitution. The words mean only what they, the judiciary, declare it to be regardless of your and my capability to read them yourself. They expand the meaning of the 14th Amendment to suit their bias rather than go through the actual amending process, which they probably anticipate can't get approved, like the Equal Rights Amendment. Once again, its all about power. l'etat, c'est moi! |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-09-25 09:09 |
| #2 THE Constitution gives to the Congress the power over our military. What part of that did this judge miss? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-09-25 08:59 |
| #1 Death by a thousand paper cuts. Time to force the issue. Release all servicememebers from all their contractual obligations since the terms of service under which the original contracts are no longer valid. No mission critical, mission essential excuses. These judges don't accept such arguments. They want a crisis, give them a crisis. Any member who chooses to stay does so under the 'social justice' standards of the judiciary. Screw it that we're in the middle of the war. It too is not critical to the judiciary. Force the issue. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-09-25 08:32 |