Selective enforcement is not allowed. Article 125 is a red herring.
Article 125 is not a major issue and can easily be address when doing away with discrimination against homosexuals.
..it's not like they are born that way and can't control it.
I guess you can just wave your magic fairy wand and make it go away then? Obviously you have never worked in govt or the military or else you would know that NOTHING can ever be "easily addressed".
Worked in the military. And yes, it can be easily addressed. It will come with the admission into the service of qualified individuals and doing away with discrimination. .
lol, you must be smoking crack if you think you can "easily" do away with discrimination. :rofl:
lol, you must be smoking crack if you think you can "easily" do away with discrimination. :rofl:
not that it is , in any way, relevant to this particular topic but that has yet to be proven with any certainty.
No, the Dems will still claim it, and most likely get the credit as well.I'm noticing a strange shift in the GOP base. It was Republicans who brought a legal challenge to DADT, a Republican lawyer who lead the challenge of a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican judge who is struck down a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican campaign manager who came out as gay and dedicated himself to fighting for same sex marriage, etc.
If Democrats don't get their act together, then the GOP will be the ones who will claim that they established gay rights in the United States.
Really, educate yourself...
United States District Court for the Central District of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a federal court not a state court. Learn about what you are talking about, it will save you much embarrassment.
Activist judge = one who rules in a way you do not like.
By the way, no one has claimed to my knowledge that this meant an immediate change or was the end of any process. Nice try though.
Well, actually, that's exactly what ya'll claimed.
You can of course show where I or any one else claim that. Start with where I claim it, then move on. Or are you going to duck and run from proving your claims again?
you can only falsify.
Why do we look at the facts:
1) There's no study which looks at how a homosexual person interacts with his hetrosexual counterparts in combat or any military setting.
2) All statements that allowing gays to serve openly will harm combat effectiveness is only assumption because there is no study
3) Gays have been serving in the US military throughout its history.
So we have two models, a military with gay servicemen and a military without them. The latter has never existed in history. So its reasonable to say after 200+ years of gays in the military, that they have no negative affect on the military as a whole.
The issue isn't whether gays can serve, its whether they can serve openly which hasn't happened yet. So lets look at that, everyone who says DADT should remain in place does so by talking about how it'll hurt combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. However all these arguements are based on their assumption of someone ELSE'S reaction. No one is going to say, "I can't/won't work with a gay person" because it makes them look, correctly, like a bigot.
So here's what I need to even consider supporting DADT, a large group of servicemen and former servicemen saying "I cannot or will not work with a homosexual individual because of their lifestyle." Until them all I've seen in hundreds of pages of these arguments from this topic and others is assumptions on other people's reactions.
You have credible sources to support everything you've said?
The military will not reinstate any gay service members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy despite a judge's ruling last week that the policy is unconstitutional, the Pentagon said Monday. Though the ruling gave a boost to gay rights activists trying to overturn the policy via Congress and the courts, a Pentagon spokeswoman said the decision has no bearing on military policy.
"This ruling has no impact on the current law. The current law is still in effect," spokeswoman Cynthia Smith told FoxNews.com. She said the Justice Department and Defense Department are reviewing the decision, but that nothing will change without congressional action.
Darn it! No activist judge decisions to become law!
Damn that Constitution!
FOXNews.com - Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling
I think he's saying that the lack of sources is his proof.You have credible sources to support everything you've said?
So, you're now saying that you didn't get all excited, since the 9th Circus ruled DADT unconstitutional? Several of us said that this would have zero effect on DADT and you et. al. called us homphobes, ignorant and liars. You seriously don't remember that?
Is nice to see there is still some sanity in this country...............Let the troops themselves decide on DADT not a bunch of bureaucrats and "Feel Good Liberals" who are clueless about the military and the effect a stupid decision like this will have on morale amd readiness.................
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?