- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If that was the policy for heterosexuals as well, you would have a point.
I have linked each of the versions that have been voted on, and all do remove the ban of gays in the military. Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Except, that the actual defense directive that bans gays in the military was never lifted.
I think it very well should be and I'm not convinced that it won't be, by the orders of individual commands.
I want nothing but the very best for our service members. If totally unrestricted service for gays is what's best, then I hope it works. Pesonally, I expect there to be housing issues, restrictions on gays serving in combat arms units, especially in the Army and Marine Corps and that unrestricted gay service isn't going to take effect for a few years.
I just linked where it was. Did you miss "striking section 654". That is the ban on gays.
The ban on gays is Defense Directive 1332. That hasn't been lifted.
They cannot make legal orders that ban members from talking about their significant others on their off-time, even while in the field. Military or not, COs cannot legally say that their troops cannot talk about who they are dating when they are on liberty. Not to mention, this wouldn't work anyway. There is very little chance that such an order would be followed, especially while units are home. Married men/women would not be able to invite any other servicemembers over to their house (and really not be able to mention that they lived in base housing at all, since that would prove that they were married, to someone of the opposite sex, since with DOMA in place, same sex marriages aren't recognized yet). The same thing would be true for any other servicemember living with another person that they are in a relationship with. Plus, it wouldn't be practical to allow servicemembers to go out together, since one of them might start hitting on someone out in front of their fellow servicemembers. God forbid they want to take their girlfriend out on a date or go out dancing with their boyfriend. They may run into someone from their unit and violate orders about revealing relationships.
Somehow I don't think Congress and the media missed that.
The ban on gays is Defense Directive 1332. That hasn't been lifted.
Please, don't tell me that you would be surprised if Congress and the media missed it. Are we talking about the same media that doesn't know the difference between an assault rifle and a squirrel rifle?
Do you really think the ban on gays hasn't been lifted? Despite all the headlines and the brouhaha? That sounds a little desperate.
Do you really think the ban on gays hasn't been lifted? Despite all the headlines and the brouhaha? That sounds a little desperate.
No, I don't. I've seen nothing, yet, that shows that DD1332 was ever withdrawn.
Not to mention, Article 125 of the UCMJ, is still in place. Soldiers who openly discuss committing sodomy can be subject to a court martial, under that article.
Actually, they can.
If a division commander can order that members of his division are forbidden to engage in PDA, even while off duty and off post, they can regulate what soldiers are allowed to discuss, while on duty and within the unit's operational area. The same way that a soldier can't talk about he went to a really cool Klan rally over the weekend.
No, I don't. I've seen nothing, yet, that shows that DD1332 was ever withdrawn.
Not to mention, Article 125 of the UCMJ, is still in place. Soldiers who openly discuss committing sodomy can be subject to a court martial, under that article.
And, the repeal speaks of changing any rules of the military that are necessary to implement the change. That should mean getting rid of the sodomy rule, but even if it doesn't, sodomy requires much more proof to prosecute than DADT.
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
Which will be part of the DoD's implementation of these rules.
a) I specifically mentioned off-duty. b) If a person already knows about everyone else's sexuality, then it wouldn't be a DADT rule at all. It would be a don't talk about your personal life while you're supposed to be doing your job. Which is completely reasonable, but not what you have been suggesting.
You would be referring to this:
B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
No, I don't. I've seen nothing, yet, that shows that DD1332 was ever withdrawn.
Not to mention, Article 125 of the UCMJ, is still in place. Soldiers who openly discuss committing sodomy can be subject to a court martial, under that article.
Leaves alotta room to play with. What, "discretions", could they be speaking of?
Yeah like I predicted Republicans would take over the house Nov 2.........ROTFLMAO
No, you said, "...even while in the field", and that's the part I highlighted.
I think it's obvious to everyone that the military can't impose rules that restrict speech while off post.
A win for the good guys......Looks like a repeal of DADT is dead..........
Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com
'DON'T ASK' STAYS: The Senate has failed to vote in favor of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." Democrats got 57 votes in favor of repealing it, three short of the 60 required.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?