US Supreme Court Upholds “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy
The court refused to hear the case of a former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II. The case questions the constitutionality of the policy. The case had been dismissed previously by the federal appeals court in Boston.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, saying that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." The policy was established in 1993 by the Clinton administration.
Bill Clinton established the policy after his efforts to allow gays to serve openly failed.
Lets say two 18+ y.o. gay guys get married in Iowa and 1 joins the military. Does that mean this policy is null and void? Does the military then have to recognize their marriage and provide base housing, med coverage, etc. to the 'wife'? If the enlisted half is transfered to a part of the US where gay marriage is not legal, what then?
Yes, it makes such perfect sense to eject highly skilled, multilingual, trained people from the military solely based on who they love. What kind of rationale is that!? It's just another one of those basic human rights that they should already have and not have to fight for, but sadly do. I hope Obama will carry through with is promise to remove this homophobic policy which will do much to strengthen our military and fill it once again with diversity, equality, and highly skilled people no matter their sexual orientation. I can't even understand how it was that this blatant discrimination was allowed to stand in our country of freedom for as long as it has.
I goes back to that old "conservative" thought that gayness is a disease like aids, Ebola or the flu... You can cure it with a fresh dose of Christianity.
Basically old fashioned hatred has been injected into mainly evangelical Christianity. They dont call it hate though. In these cases its called religion and they find a couple bible verses to justify this evil.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi
good in theory... but an utter failure in practice.
for instance the case of the gay arabic translator that was dismissed from the military for being found to be gay.... and he wasn't the only one, this is from 2 and half years ago:
So find me a "Scientific" study that shows that gay men and women are less effective in the military than straight ones. Being a man of "science" and all.
"The military force is not about being fashionable but keeping us safe from foreign invasion."
what does that have to do with anyhting?...
and i suppose you think all gay people act like flambouant fairies like the media shows at gay pride parades.
mr.science perhaps the next time you change your name you can change to to something more truthful, like mr.status quo, thats about all you represent.
and no thats not SUPPOSED to be the function of the military, but rather to DEFEND their country (today, such a thing would be a novel concept), not build and maintain an empire abroard under pretenses that if "rogues" did would be automatically labelled terrorism.
They did study gay units. I was discovered that a bull lesbian unit when on their period was classified as too cruel for use by the Geneva Convention. Thus all gay units were banned.
To be fair, they did not actively uphold the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, they just choose not to review a challenge to it. Yes, the effective result of non-action is a passive upholding, but the denial of the court to hear the case does not mean that they agree with the existing decision and it does not create a precedent.
The quote that DADT "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion" comes from a filing by the Obama Administration (I can't find it) which asked the Supreme Court to not hear this case. It was a reference to the ruling of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, MA on (I think) Case 06-2381, Pietrangelo v. Gates (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/...
PIETRANGELO, JAMES E. V. GATES, SEC. OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
The motion of petitioner to strike the brief of the Cook respondents is denied. The motion of petitioner to seal Attachment A to the motion to strike is granted. The motion of the Cook respondents to withdraw the brief filed January 26, 2009, is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
