TexasCHLforum.com

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:You know what you are right. We should lower the standards for you. We should lower the military standards just like we lower every other standard in this country so that we can coddle everyone and not hold them accountable for themselves. God forbid somebody actually try and meet the standards for a job, school or the military. No, we must lower the standards of this country so that we can adjust to you so that you do not have to do any work.

Gays are not allowed to openly serve. Its not that they cannot serve. They just cant do it openly. Thats the standard but instead of meeting the standard you want to change it to where it is easier for you

Sadly this is exactly what we are doing
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162- ... 91704.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think gays are perfectly capable of serving in the military. But that is something for congress to decide not activist Judges.

Circle only one option. Declaring "Don't, ask don't tell" unconstitutional is best for:

A) The Military
B) The Safety of the American People
C) The Political Career of Judge Virginia Phillips



In short the military has a job to do and it is to keep our country safe, gays can be openly integrated. When the time is right it will happen naturally. What is currently happening is the military is being thrown under the bus to enhance political careers.

Lastly how is Don't ask, Don't tell a violation of a person's 5th amendment rights?

That's like a prosecutor shouting at witness, "I demand you not tell me where the bodies are buried!"

As far as the military culture, once you get out of your initial training and get to your duty station:

1) No one checks on your underwear.

2) No one aside from a few real cheapskates keeps the green blankets on his bed.

3) In many units, soldiers paint their barracks rooms different colors if they wish.

4) No one marches anywhere any more except at various ceremonies.

5) Soldiers usually wear civilian clothes after duty hours, and are forbidden to wear uniforms off post unless they are going between work and home.

6) A soldier can actually live anywhere he wants - even at home with his momma - as long as he can make it to formation on time and he can be reached for alerts.

7) Males and Females are not prohibited from entering one another's rooms. They do not room together, but they can come and go as they please.

It has been that way for at least 18 years and probably longer.


More importantly, Heterosexuals generally manage to keep their sex lives out from on front of their roommate's faces. What makes you think that homosexuals don't?

Homosexuals are already in the millitary. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is stupid, prejudicial and unrealistic. Chaptering out an otherwise good soldier for no other reason than his sexual preference becomes known is discriminatory (in the bad sense) and stupid.

Homosexuals do not have cooties, nor is it contagious. It is high time that the military - and society at large - get over their phobia. There used to be a time when we didn't want Black people living around White people and drinking out of the same water fountains.

Here's another case coming down the pike, most likely also headed for the 9th Circuit. There appears to have been no "ask," and no "tell." All it took was a vengeful letter to Major Witt's superior officer. It also appears that there will be testimony that Major Witt's unit's morale suffered, rather ironically, as a result of the major's separation under DADT, not the converse.

Major Witt is a lesbian. Do all the arguments one sees above in the man's case, which someone might argue are straw men cited to skirt the issue of prejudice, fit the case of this female officer awarded the Air Medal by the President of the United States for her performance of her duty in the hostile MidEast environment?

I'm sure that given the changed, and changing, nature of our armed forces, nobody will say "but women are different."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/266494_aclu13.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b322da wrote:Here's another case coming down the pike, most likely also headed for the 9th Circuit. There appears to have been no "ask," and no "tell." All it took was a vengeful letter to Major Witt's superior officer. It also appears that there will be testimony that Major Witt's unit's morale suffered, rather ironically, as a result of the major's separation under DADT, not the converse.

Major Witt is a lesbian. Do all the arguments one sees above in the man's case, which someone might argue are straw men cited to skirt the issue of prejudice, fit the case of this female officer awarded the Air Medal by the President of the United States for her performance of her duty in the hostile MidEast environment?

I'm sure that given the changed, and changing, nature of our armed forces, nobody will say "but women are different."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/266494_aclu13.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When did Presidents begin awarding Air Medals? Perhaps he was in the area when she was awarded it. That happens sometimes when a President is to visit, and award ceremonies are scheduled so he can pin on the medals. Quite an honor for those receiving awards. Was it an Air Medal w/V Device (valor)? There's a difference between Air Medals for meritorious achievement, and those for valor (V Device). It says, "Her citation for the Air Medal, signed by Bush.." To my knowledge, they are signed by the Secretary of the Air Force, not Presidents. At least mine are. Just curious.

After 18 years of service, her dismissal is a hard pill to swallow. She will be denied promotion and retirement benefits, and that's a shame. But in the end one must grapple with the fact that she knowingly engaged in actions contrary to regulations. Whether one agrees with the regs, or not, they are what they are.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

nitrogen wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:For the same reasons that it would make a female uncomfortable to room with a male.

I'd better ask my female roomate how uncomfortable I make her when she gets back from her boyfriends' place tonight.

So basically, what you're telling me, is, you have a gay brother-in-law, but you'd be uncomfortable living with anyone that's gay? Why is that? Do you think they'd be looking/thinking about you in a lecherous manner? Do you think they'd try something?

Do you think about every woman YOU see in a lecherous manner? Do you try something on every woman you see? Why do you think someone that's gay would act in a manner that's any different?

I submit that if men and women can work together in the military, so can gay and straight folks. People need to get over their heebie-jeebies about it.

Does your female roommate share your bedroom? Because that's what this is about.

Still no answer?

G26ster wrote:

b322da wrote:Here's another case coming down the pike, most likely also headed for the 9th Circuit. There appears to have been no "ask," and no "tell." All it took was a vengeful letter to Major Witt's superior officer. It also appears that there will be testimony that Major Witt's unit's morale suffered, rather ironically, as a result of the major's separation under DADT, not the converse.

Major Witt is a lesbian. Do all the arguments one sees above in the man's case, which someone might argue are straw men cited to skirt the issue of prejudice, fit the case of this female officer awarded the Air Medal by the President of the United States for her performance of her duty in the hostile MidEast environment?

I'm sure that given the changed, and changing, nature of our armed forces, nobody will say "but women are different."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/266494_aclu13.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When did Presidents begin awarding Air Medals? Perhaps he was in the area when she was awarded it. That happens sometimes when a President is to visit, and award ceremonies are scheduled so he can pin on the medals. Quite an honor for those receiving awards. Was it an Air Medal w/V Device (valor)? There's a difference between Air Medals for meritorious achievement, and those for valor (V Device). It says, "Her citation for the Air Medal, signed by Bush.." To my knowledge, they are signed by the Secretary of the Air Force, not Presidents. At least mine are. Just curious.

After 18 years of service, her dismissal is a hard pill to swallow. She will be denied promotion and retirement benefits, and that's a shame. But in the end one must grapple with the fact that she knowingly engaged in actions contrary to regulations. Whether one agrees with the regs, or not, they are what they are.

Thank you for your honorable service, G26ster. Air Medals are not handed out like candy.

A military decoration may be awarded by a superior in command to the commander who ordinarily makes the particular award, and the President was of course the commander-in-chief. I do not know the cirumstances of the President making this award, but if it was actually pinned on her by the President I suspect that would have been stressed, with photos galore.. The President sometimes signs military citations to add his personal commendation to the honor bestowed.

Likewise I do not know whether the Air Medal had the V device. I do wonder, however, whether it really matters, since according to an article in the Air Force Times Major Witt had also been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, which I believe is above the Air Medal in precedence.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... sk_052208/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do have to question any suggestion that regulations are regulations and must be followed whether right or wrong. When "wrong" means "unconstitutional," must they be followed? I can only refer to a guy named Heller, who accepted personal risk in order to get the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court.

In my personal opinion the most interesting, if not the most important, question here was highlighted the first time Major Witt's case went through the 9th Circuit, when it ruled that commanders must prove a person’s homosexuality harms unit cohesion by questioning others in the unit, in order to make a rational decision as to whether the customary general arguments, and assumptions, in support of DADT, which we see above in the other case, actually apply to this particular individual. In other words, just being gay is not enough to support the discharge, and Major Witt was discharged just for being gay. Neither the A or the T of DATD triggered her discharge. Just a letter, apparently originally anonymous, triggered the commander's decision, and the case was sent back to the trial court to hear evidence on this question and decide again.

I will stick my neck out and speculate that ultimately the judiciary, possibly the Supreme Court itself, will punt on this issue, and leave the question up to the military and the Congress.

G26ster wrote:After 18 years of service, her dismissal is a hard pill to swallow. She will be denied promotion and retirement benefits, and that's a shame. But in the end one must grapple with the fact that she knowingly engaged in actions contrary to regulations. Whether one agrees with the regs, or not, they are what they are.

It's no different than an employee who carries a concealed handgun contrary to regulations.

It is very different. You can choose to carry a handgun or not.

You can chose to ask or tell, or not.

You can choose to intentionally fail to conceal your sexual preferences, or not.

Read the story. Major Witt did not "intentionally fail to conceal" her sexual preferences.

bdickens wrote:Read the story. Major Witt did not "intentionally fail to conceal" her sexual preferences.

This is the regulation as quoted in the article:

Air Force Instruction No. 36-3209, section 2.20, says service members "shall be discharged" if they "engaged in, attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts" or "made a statement that he or she is homosexual or bisexual."

So, the case will depend if she violated any part of that regulation. If she didn't then she should win. If she did, then the Air Force was justified. The courts will decide. As the challenge is that the regulation violated her constitutional rights, then we know where this may be headed in the long run.

ive been resisting to post on this topic but here it goes.

most of the people who has issues living or working with gay men isnt even someone a gay man would want to be with anyway.

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

G26ster wrote:

bdickens wrote:Read the story. Major Witt did not "intentionally fail to conceal" her sexual preferences.

This is the regulation as quoted in the article:

Air Force Instruction No. 36-3209, section 2.20, says service members "shall be discharged" if they "engaged in, attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts" or "made a statement that he or she is homosexual or bisexual."

So, the case will depend if she violated any part of that regulation. If she didn't then she should win. If she did, then the Air Force was justified. The courts will decide. As the challenge is that the regulation violated her constitutional rights, then we know where this may be headed in the long run.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree as to "what the case will depend on."

The 9th Circuit gave the District Court, according to my limited knowledge, which comports with the news articles quoted above, and I stand ready to be corrected, the task of holding a new trial to see if Major Witt indeed caused those imaginary horribles so easily recited by so many people. That is what the case depends on. The United States did not appeal the Circuit's holding, and appears ready to fight the battle on the same ground where it started, the battleground the government itself chose. That is now the law in the 9th Circuit. The trial court, after holding a new trial and hearing from both sides may find as a fact that indeed in Major Witt's case the imaginary horribles could have, or did, happen, and again approve the government's action, and it may not. Either way I would suspect that we will not have heard the end of it. And, in the final analysis, I would suspect the case to indeed go to the Supreme Court. I also do not expect the present Supreme Court to be as willing to slap the authorities down as it was in Heller.

This case, at this point, will undoubtedly hinge on whether AFI 36-3209 is constitutional, and I again suggest, that one cannot be punished for not obeying an unconstitutional regulation. An unconstitutional AF regulation is clearly unlawful. To suggest that a member of the military has an obligation to obey a clearly unlawful order means that no law was made at Nuremberg, after all we have heard to the contrary.

Put another way, the case will depend on the ultimate correctness of the 9th Circuit's initial decision that a commander, and a court, must look at the specific circumstances around a specific case, and not rely on unproved assumptions of imaginary horribles.

bdickens wrote:1) 2) Male-female relationships form within the unit frequently with negligible, if any, effect on morale and/ or cohesion.

Having commanded a mixed male/female unit in a combat zone, I disagree. It's normal for men to form friendships, rivalries, etc, as it is for women. On the individual and small unit level, when romantic or sexual behavior is involved, the emotions are magnified, jealousies are worse, and breakups are even worse. Deployments complicate everything. I've seen what can happen with heterosexual relationships. Open homosexual relationships under those circumstances will further complicate the job of maintaining discipline, trust, and cohesion.

bdickens wrote:3) Gay people can, have and continue to serve honorably.

I have no doubt that some of the soldiers I served with were homosexual, including some of my best soldiers. I suspect that some were successful as soldiers in part because they had to be very discreet in their personal lives. Avoiding negative attention from the command was especially important before "Don't ask, don't tell." The habits developed served them well.
I do take issue with saying any sexually active homosexual is serving "honorably", as the defining acts are still, I believe, against UCMJ. There is also the question, of those who entered before the current policy, of whether they were asked about orientation during inprocessing. I was. Lying at that point would have been a crime.

"I do take issue with saying any sexually active homosexual is serving "honorably", as the defining acts are still, I believe, against UCMJ. There is also the question, of those who entered before the current policy, of whether they were asked about orientation during inprocessing. I was. Lying at that point would have been a crime."


A crime for saying your straight when your not? lol thats funny.