The Tea Party Terrorists

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Sexuality is constitutionally protected under substantive due process and privacy cases.  The restrictions on gays in the military were already under court attack and now they are gone by legislative action.  . DADT went far beyond asking and telling it made being gay illegal in the military.  All of it is now gone. How you can then conclude that further challenges along these lines can be made is simply beyond me.  There is no law to allow it and there are rights to stop it
    Posted by Reubenhop


    I didn't think that logic was too difficult to follow.  I was looking at it without taking into account acceptance of openly gay service.

    Did DADT really make it illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military?  I thought it prohibited investigation into lifesyle choices, and UCMJ was the tool that made it illegal, and still does in some cases...if information gleaned online can be trusted...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : I didn't think that logic was too difficult to follow.  I was looking at it without taking into account acceptance of openly gay service. Did DADT really make it illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military?  I thought it prohibited investigation into lifesyle choices, and UCMJ was the tool that made it illegal, and still does in some cases...if information gleaned online can be trusted...
    Posted by Rushfan2112


    DADT is sometimes used as a term to cover all of the gay related legislation in regard to the military and sometimes to refer to the actual "Don't ask" part.  The don't ask/don't tell part was actually a reform as it halted the practice of conducting investigations to throw gays out under existing laws forbidding them to be in the service.  But people were still thrown out if the authorities discovered your status in some other way.  All the laws have now been revoked so you can serve regardless of orientation.  There is one caveat: sodomy is still on the list of military crimes although such laws have already been declared unconsitutional in a civil context.  Hope this helps.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists



    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Ridiculous.  Before only gays could be fired for admitting their sexuality. Now they can't.  That is being treated equally, not unequally. Duh!
    Posted by Reubenhop


    I think your logic is tortured.  Brass couldn't ask, gays couldn't tell.  As pointed out.  Now Gays can tell, I assume brass can ask.  To what end?  I mean, what is the impact of knowing someone is gay under your command?  Sounds like this is a set up for being denied promotions and special treatment, based on  reasonable accommodation due to being gay.  This, my friend, is special treatment.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : I think your logic is tortured.  Brass couldn't ask, gays couldn't tell.  As pointed out.  Now Gays can tell, I assume brass can ask.  To what end?  I mean, what is the impact of knowing someone is gay under your command?  Sounds like this is a set up for being denied promotions and special treatment, based on  reasonable accommodation due to being gay.  This, my friend, is special treatment.
    Posted by skeeter20


    Huh?  Old law: gays got fired for being gay.  New law: gays don't get fired for being gay.  There is now no need to ask about sexuality because it does not matter.  If someone is denied promotion just for being gay that would be a lawsuit since our society believes in punishing bigotry.  Or do you want to protect bigots?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Huh?  Old law: gays got fired for being gay.  New law: gays don't get fired for being gay.  There is now no need to ask about sexuality because it does not matter.  If someone is denied promotion just for being gay that would be a lawsuit since our society believes in punishing bigotry.  Or do oyu want to protect bigots?
    Posted by Reubenhop


    You upside down on this one.

    Gays only got discharged if they made a case of it, period.  No one was out to get them DADT enforced a policy of not caring one way or another.  Trust me, the brass would walk a country mile around someone before trying to discharge them for announcing they are gay.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : You upside down on this one. Gays only got discharged if they made a case of it, period.  No one was out to get them DADT enforced a policy of not caring one way or another.  Trust me, the brass would walk a country mile around someone before trying to discharge them for announcing they are gay.
    Posted by skeeter20


    Lots of people were fired when the information came to light.  And the information can come out in any number of ways.  Why should they lead secret lives?  Most in the military know the status of those they serve with and most don't care.  Why should you?  Or anyone for that matter?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    Now Gays can tell, I assume brass can ask.  To what end?  ------------------------- Yes they can ask, and Sodomy is still a court martial offense.  Thats a problem, or at least could be. UCMJ Article 125 - Sodomy Text . “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    I well lay money on that law being doomed at least for private consensual activity that doesn't impact some other law like fraternization.  Lawrence v. Texas is pretty clear and with all the anti-gay laws being revoked for the military there is no real legal ability to make a distinction.  Could anyone show a rational basis to prosecute a soldier for the same behavior that is protected for civilians? 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : There was a senator in recent times that was a liberal, a democrat, and a member of the KKK.  Can't seem to put my finger on his name...
    Posted by skeeter20


    Thats alright you cant seem to put your finger on what recent time is either.
     
Sections
Shortcuts