DADT Unconstitutional?

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

2 tours. 2 branches. aviation mechanic. May or may not be serving presently. With my posts I'm sure you understand my vagueness.

As many classes as I've had on UCMJ, military law, etc. I hope I know at least a little bit about the way things work.

My only real concern is that the standard that's been established long before my time will begin to erode because of the egg shells we're being required to walk on.

DADT revoked will have repercussions and I don't how servere they will be but I do know that if its declared unconstitutional there will be no reversing it if things go poorly. I don't care about gays serving in the military but I'd want to hear about it really. I'm no more comfortable listening to a gay man's private affairs than a straight man's. I don't want to hear about any of it and now there will be nothing I can do about any of it. Because if I complain to my supervisor I'm likely to be repremanded.

As far as civilians weighing in. I don't mind. I like the perspective but at the same time its like California weighing in on Arizona's thoughts on the border in a way. You saw how the first two posts in the thread went lol. I didn't realize that the general populous thinks servicemen are above the law.

I fear change in the Military. I hate to see _______(insert word) sensitivity impair the military like it has the nation. I'm not so ignorant as to not see that much change has occurred in years past. I just like the idea of military being a model for the nation and not the other way around.

I can agree with you on the points you bring up, and I know at least where you are coming from. I don't see where people get the idea that we're above the law when that couldn't be further from the truth, how many civilians here would be put on restriction, given half a months pay x2, and reduced in rank/paygrade AFTER dealing with all the civilian penalities for recieving a DUI? If anything in the military its almost as if you get it twice as bad, so before people go spouting off about how "Military thinks they're above the law" you might want to do some research first.

Busteds13 what does an openly gay service member mean to you? The only times I see their sexual preference coming into play would be in their off time; Because while on base, Public Display of Affection is not allowed, and most certainly not in uniform. While at work it shouldn't come into play either as being professional is part of your job, not talking about hookups and shit nobody really cares to hear on either side of the fence. Openly gay may mean something to you, but I really don't care what someones sexual desires are, it isn't supposed to be something to talk about while working anyways. Nobody is saying that openly gay people are going to get blanket parties or anything like that(too much "Full Metal Jacket" for you, hazing will get you into deep shit nowadays anyways) But I can honestly say it will further complicate an already complicated system. Many more of the articles of the UCMJ can become questionable I.E. the article about sodomy, i dunno the number off the top of my head, but it would be contradictory in itself to keep that article if openly gays are in fact allowed to serve. Don't have much time to type right now will get more into this later. I'm curious to hear both sides points of view.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909

I can agree with you on the points you bring up, and I know at least where you are coming from. I don't see where people get the idea that we're above the law when that couldn't be further from the truth, how many civilians here would be put on restriction, given half a months pay x2, and reduced in rank/paygrade AFTER dealing with all the civilian penalities for recieving a DUI? If anything in the military its almost as if you get it twice as bad, so before people go spouting off about how "Military thinks they're above the law" you might want to do some research first.

I know first hand how some military is above the law. Of course, for the mere mortals such as ourselves, we will never be above the law. I know personally of a DUI case, in which someone in enlisted service (at a very secret/protected base/area) crashed not 1, but 2, government hummers (while intoxicated). His only punishment was having to escort my team around. However, I do realize that this is not the norm by any means. But all it takes is one public instance of someone being able to be "above the law" for the general population to view it as the norm and not the exception.

Also, as a lawyer, if you get a DUI, I do believe you can have your license revoked. Also, we (well, in theory at least...) hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard. There is a case where a NJ lawyer had a major family crisis (wife needed cancer treatment, and a child with major medical bills) so he borrowed a clients fund which were held in escrow. The client never knew about it and the money was repaid shortly after. During a random audit this came out, and this attorney was barred from practicing (I think ever again). So you can see that having more "rules" is not just for the military, but a lot of professions. And none of it is unconstitutional (at least that I have found so far).

Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909

Nobody is saying that openly gay people are going to get blanket parties or anything like that(too much "Full Metal Jacket" for you, hazing will get you into deep shit nowadays anyways) But I can honestly say it will further complicate an already complicated system. Many more of the articles of the UCMJ can become questionable I.E. the article about sodomy, i dunno the number off the top of my head, but it would be contradictory in itself to keep that article if openly gays are in fact allowed to serve. Don't have much time to type right now will get more into this later. I'm curious to hear both sides points of view.

How will having openly gay members complicate anything? I am not in the military myself, but have a lot of family and friends (some that may/may not be gay) and from my conversations with them (and their military friends) they all seem to think of it as archaic and affecting national security negatively when we lose very talented/important serviceman because of DADT.

Sodomy? you are truly worried that sodomy may become an issue? That seems to be ridiculous (and should be taken out, it is a waste of words/paper to have that in there if that is true). It is also contradictory to anyone who has anal sex in a heterosexual relationship, I do not see how this argument makes any sense at all to tell you the truth.

If anyone can point a truly real reason for DADT to be around, please let me know. I have yet to hear one legit/legal/reasonable explanation. However, I do understand why you would be worried about the way they are going about it, as that is just a lack of knowledge on how the legal system (and government) functions in that regard. Trust me, no one really knows the right answer to all of that.

[kingkilburn]

This thread should really be about reevaluating the entire UCMJ and related federal law.

There will be a domino effect with one article being found to be unconstitutional, not that it is in itself a bad thing. There could be chaos in the DOD legal systems with the status quo shaken and other articles falling by the wayside.

The UCMJ dates back to 1950 and most of what was in it then was already military law and while it has been updated since then there are some archaic and outdated things in it.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

This thread should really be about reevaluating the entire UCMJ and related federal law.

There will be a domino effect with one article being found to be unconstitutional, not that it is in itself a bad thing. There could be chaos in the DOD legal systems with the status quo shaken and other articles falling by the wayside.

The UCMJ dates back to 1950 and most of what was in it then was already military law and while it has been updated since then there are some archaic and outdated things in it.

^ Dude domino effect is what I've been getting at the whole time. Thank you.

[bb4_96]

Also, if the UCMJ and related federal law were to be re-evaluated then I hope it wouldn't be done by civilians. California on Arizona, again.

[kingkilburn]

It must be done by civilians. The DOD answers to us not the other way around.

[ThatGuy]

As of tomorrow, exactly 12 years, United States Marine Corps. I do not fear any repercussions nor reprimand for what I have to say, as I am simply speaking my opinion, not attacking law or governing bodies. That being said, let me begin;

Originally Posted by bb4_96

DADT revoked will have repercussions and I don't how servere they will be but I do know that if its declared unconstitutional there will be no reversing it if things go poorly. I don't care about gays serving in the military but I'd want to hear about it really. I'm no more comfortable listening to a gay man's private affairs than a straight man's. I don't want to hear about any of it and now there will be nothing I can do about any of it. Because if I complain to my supervisor I'm likely to be repremanded.

Just because DADT would be repealed, whether by constitutional right or not, that would not make it okay for such discussions. Welcome to the other side of the coin. Homosexuals have been putting up with listening to Pvt. Cock's weekend adventure stories from the local strip club/bar/hotel for years. They have not spoken out, for fear of reprimand or repercussions. Bottom line, your private life stays private. Your sexual exploits/experience/preference do not dictate you job performance.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

As far as civilians weighing in. I don't mind. I like the perspective but at the same time its like California weighing in on Arizona's thoughts on the border in a way. You saw how the first two posts in the thread went lol. I didn't realize that the general populous thinks servicemen are above the law.

Don't expect those on the outside to understand what happens on the inside. That is true for EVERY group. People don't even understand Zilvia until they have been here for a while.

That is not to say that they can't comment, or voice their opinions. You just have to weigh those opinions and comments accordingly. To shrug them off completely would be ignorant and foolish.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I fear change in the Military. I hate to see _______(insert word) sensitivity impair the military like it has the nation. I'm not so ignorant as to not see that much change has occurred in years past. I just like the idea of military being a model for the nation and not the other way around.

The only constant in life is change.

The "Mothers of America" changed the Military quite a few years ago. Since that time we've had to adapt, or move on. It's not always what we want, but life isn't fair. Especially for the few who readily give their lives for the rest.

The Military is still the model for the nation. Equality is shown more, and sooner in the Military than any other community. We pull together because we KNOW that we depend on each other.

There will always be ignorance in the world that will make it difficult to overcome, but we can't stop trying just because things get tough.



My personal thoughts on DADT:

While I may not like the "Unconstitutional" claim, I do feel that DADT is wrong in the grand scheme of things. "You are welcome to give your life for the country that you love, you just can't tell us HOW you love."

The Constitution doesn't make it a RIGHT to serve in the Military, so telling you that you can't serve for some reason isn't unconstitutional. Hopefully the law makers can see that, and not allow this precedent to be set. We even allow individuals who AREN'T US Citizens to train in our Military.

It doesn't take a heterosexual to get the job done. It takes a man or women. Allow them the freedoms they deserve.

Too often I see homosexuality treated as if it is chicken pox or some other communicable virus or disease. People suddenly think that if they are exposed to homosexuals, that the whole neighborhood will slowly turn "gay". What better place to start the change to equality then in our Armed Services where we learn day in and day out to depend on the person to our right and left, no matter their age, sex, skin color, religion, and, so be it, their sexual preference.



I apologize if I have rambled a bit. I wasn't able to get to this over the weekend, because I was out of town. So while I had a brief free minute, I thought I's punch my thoughts into the keyboard tonight, in the hopes that my ideals would come through.

[bb4_96]

^immensely appreciated persective. Officer or enlisted, if you don't mind me asking?

[ThatGuy]

Enlisted. I work for a living.

[bb4_96]

Same here. Though I'll still take a commision when that time comes.