+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/19/2018 01:07 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.290 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/09/2009 01:38 PM ID: 79098 Permalink   

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.

    WebReporter: tarheel68 Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  I wonder  
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?
  by: snowztorm29     06/09/2009 04:40 PM     
  They call it rational?  
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.
  by: bluraven64   06/09/2009 05:00 PM     
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."
  by: slavefortheman     06/09/2009 05:13 PM     
  dont ask tdont tell  
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:

newer blog article about this, which a 7 minute speech from a gay soldier (i think he was a lieutenant):
  by: HAVOC666     06/09/2009 05:37 PM     
  Military not social statement  
The job of the military is two fold:
1) Kill people
2) Break things

The military force is not about being fashionable but keeping us safe from foreign invasion.
  by: Mr.Science   06/09/2009 05:56 PM     
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.
  by: slavefortheman     06/09/2009 06:03 PM     
  AT: mr.``science``  
"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. 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.
  by: HAVOC666     06/09/2009 06:20 PM     
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.
  by: tarheel68     06/09/2009 07:29 PM     
  by: slavefortheman     06/09/2009 07:43 PM     
  @ tarheel68  
Does military issued camouflage come in pink and purple?
  by: snowztorm29     06/09/2009 07:52 PM     
Not that I am aware of but, if the policy is repealed they might. I think they will be identified with "rainbow" unit patches as well.
  by: tarheel68     06/09/2009 08:03 PM     
so gay people are less qualified to kill people and break things? weird
  by: mrmarler     06/09/2009 08:36 PM     
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 (

The court expressed no opinion whatsoever. Their actual filing is here (




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


Other links:
  by: nicohlis     06/10/2009 02:43 AM     
  Rationally related to cohesion?  
What a bunch of BS. Watch this interview with Nathaniel Frank, who wrote a book on how baseless this rationale is.
  by: caution2     06/15/2009 10:11 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: