Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
President Obama missed his chance at progressive history because a federal court just destroyed his Rube Goldberg approach to implementing a law he signed.
A federal appeals court ruled that the military ban on gays is unconstitutional and must be lifted right now - today.
The suit was brought by Log Cabin Republicans (Log Cabin is code for "gay'). The Court was sitting in San Francisco (San Francisco is code for "gay").
But didn't President Obama already sign a law repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell? As with all things Democrat - yes and no.
As a candidate President Obama said he would repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. Once he became President, it started to feel as though he would wait longer to say the word "GAY" than President Reagan waited to say the word "AIDS" (the difference being that the latter had absolutely no affect on anyone's life).
It wasn't until his January 2010 State of the Union Address that the President committed himself to allowing gays in the military. So strong was his commitment that he refused to touch the issue with a ten foot pole while the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during an election year.
A few bills and some filibusters later, on December 22, 2010 the President finally signed into law the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, which ended DADT for good.
No it didn't.
The implementation of the law was held in abeyance indefinitely. First a committee had to be formed. Then the committee had to study policy, readiness, unit cohesion and whether camouflage comes in lavender.
But that's not all. Once the committee issued a report, the President would issue a 60 day waiting period, followed by some undefined, incremental implementation of whatever policy the commission comes up with.
For something the President insists won't have a negative effect on the military, on implementation he seemed as hesitant as a Chicago bookie going long on the Cubs winning a World Series. His actions belie his assertion.
Well that's all moot now. If something goes wrong, he can always say the policy wasn't ready and blame it on the Court.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Working daily with the military I can attest to the fact that implementation is going forward. It consists mostly of training at this point. The senior civilians at my facility have even been required to attend a few sessions. As for the military members, they are conducting themselves as one would expect, with professionalism and pride in their service. They would not stoop to dishonoring themselves or the military by acting the way the left thinks (hopes) they will. I served with a few gays when I was in, and none of them was the flamboyant, pride march type. They did their jobs and left their personal lives at home. It won't be completely easy making the transition if the flaming gays show up, but the men and women of the military will comport themselves the same way they did when it went from men to men and women.
As to the legal aspects, what did the administration expect to happen by signing a law with an indefinite implementation date? The stupidity of such a thing cannot be described within the boundaries of the CoC.
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 2:45amMay '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
How queer.
Honestly, I hadn't given the matter a moment's thought since the ban was passed, so I didn't realize the Obama administration or anyone was delaying the change.
Jul '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
It's odd that appeal seems unlikely. I realize that DADT is gone regardless, but shouldn't every Ninth Circuit ruling be appealed simply as a matter of due diligence?
Don't they get overturned roughly every other Tuesday?
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Let me just get in front of this one: this topic will not be featured on the next episode of "Law Talk". One more discussion of homosexuality and we're up for a sponsorship from The Advocate.
May '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
I've had my DADT repeal brief already, so they are junking the policy, I can assure you.
Mar '11
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Let's be honest though. They were low-key because they had no choice.
What people don't seem to realize is that this really had nothing to do with a desire to serve in the military. This was, from the beginning, all about discrediting and repealing a moral standard because that moral standard condemned what they did. And that's why this isn't over. Next comes the cross-dressers, surgically-altered transvestites, etc. It'll be an endless list, and it's really all about legally discrediting any implementation of judeo-christian ethics and morals. The director John Waters once said that what gay men wanted was a world where they didn't HAVE to marry. I still think that's true, and that these crusades are far more about making an anti-moral statement than any real desire for marriage or service.
Jun '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
I had to brief my men two months ago, and that was at Company level. It filtered through a lot before it got down to us, so everyone's already on board with this. I wonder what the hold-up's been?
Jul '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
I sometimes wonder if Mr. De Seno wouldn't be more comfortable flogging his opinions at the HuffPost.
May '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Douglas
Let's be honest though.
Yes, lets. What I can say about DADT is that it has caused many unnecessary tribulations for military personnel. What travails are solved by removing someone like Lieutenant Colonel Victor Ferhenbach from the Air Force and denying him his pension? What dilemmas are remedied by discharging Lieutenant Daniel Choi from the Army? DADT was supposed to be a problem solving policy.
Granted, there are social democrats who are concerned with DADT to the extent that they believe in an environment where the military is a demographic mirror of an urban society. They wish to abolish DADT. I oppose DADT as well, but for different reasons. For some of us, from the beginning it was about ending a policy that harassed qualified soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, not about admitting transvestites or testing the delicate Judeo-Christian ethic.
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 5:14amOct '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Oh wonderful: the courts have legislated from the bench again. Way to go ruining support for gay people; because, of course, sudden forced reversal of DADT would never end in disaster, oh no, and the legitimacy of such an action isn't in doubt (hail SCOTUS!).
Why can't the courts stay out of this stuff? It was already repealed--and the lengthy process of review was appropriate when we're fighting three wars. Now is not the time for the court to be dictating policy choices for the military.
Mar '11
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
It's never the time for civilian courts to dictate military policy. Any real President would tell the courts "Butt out, you're not in the military's chain of command. You have no authority over them. Period".
Sep '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
I am happy (not gay) beyond words that I retired a year ago so that I don't have to put up with this foolishness anymore. It's tiresome and a huge distraction. DADT repeal, that is.
Casey, what's your hurry? Do you have a troop facing imminent ADSEP for homosexuality? Of course not - all but the most heinous cases will be set on the back burner until DOD goes to full implementation. The Army took longer to implement the black beret uniform change than this. What is the point of this court ruling? It's silly beyond the usual silliness of 9th circuit jurisprudence.
Over the history of DADT, I would wager that 95% of separations came as a result of either a very junior servicemember faking it to get out of his committment, or someone letting their freak flag fly, and getting called on it when it could no longer be ignored. This is not about rights, it's about a very small constituency calling the tune and getting the DOD to dance a jig.
Mar '11
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Michael Labeit
What I can say about DADT is that it has caused many unnecessary tribulations for military personnel. What travails are solved by removing someone like Lieutenant Colonel Victor Ferhenbach from the Air Force and denying him his pension? What dilemmas are remedied by discharging Lieutenant Daniel Choi from the Army? DADT was supposed to be a problem solving policy.
DADT never should have been enacted in the first place. The original policy should have stayed in place: homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. DADT was a sorry Democratic Party dodge on the issue when Bill Clinton, coward that he was, despised military discipline and ethics but didn't have the stones to assault them directly.
As for your comment about "delicate" morals, an army that has no judeo-christian influence within it will eventually become a potential threat to its own citizens.Those Bible-thumping hayseeds are going to be civilized whether they like it or not! Send in an armored division!
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 6:20amMay '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Douglas
DADT never should have been enacted in the first place. The original policy should have stayed in place: homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.
The UCMJ prohibits an array of obnoxious and inappropriate behavior. Sexual conduct is forbidden on duty, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Fraternization is already prohibited by UCMJ, hence, as long as the rule is enforced, there is little threat from homosexual or heterosexual behavior.
As for the necessity of Judeo-Christianity within the armed forces, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Please explain though your claim about the incompatibility of "homosexual conduct" as I don't fully understand what you're talking about.
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 6:22amMar '11
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Michael Labeit
The UCMJ prohibits an array of obnoxious and inappropriate behavior. .
Which means exactly zilch if the meaning of "obnoxious and inappropriate" is constantly redefined according to political fashion. Even worse, going back to that mean ole' Bible (specifically Isaiah 5:20), it's easy to see how "obnoxious and inappropriate" suddenly means believing in that same mean ole' Bible.
May '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Douglas
Michael Labeit
The UCMJ prohibits an array of obnoxious and inappropriate behavior. .
Which means exactly zilch if the meaning of "obnoxious and inappropriate" is constantly redefined according to political fashion. Even worse, going back to that mean ole' Bible (specifically Isaiah 5:20), it's easy to see how "obnoxious and inappropriate" suddenly means believing in that same mean ole' Bible.
I gather than that you are not familiar with the UCMJ. Its known by us for its punitive and, some say, medieval requisitions. Its far more intrusive and resistant to change than I would suggest you believe.
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 6:32amMar '11
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Michael Labeit
Please explain though your claim about the incompatibility of "homosexual conduct" as I don't fully understand what you're talking about. · Jul 6 at 9:18pm
Edited on Jul 06 at 09:22 pm
Prior to DADT... since WWII in fact, from FDR all the way through Bush the Elder... homosexuality was banned outright as incompatible with military service. The last revision to the pre-DADT policy was in 1982, and it stated:
"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank an command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security."
Mar '11
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Michael Labeit
I gather than that you are not familiar with the UCMJ. Its known by us for its punitive and, some say, medieval requisitions. Its far more intrusive and resistant to change than I would suggest you believe. · Jul 6 at 9:31pm
Edited on Jul 06 at 09:32 pm
I served back in the 80's. I'm very familiar with the UCMJ. It was constantly drilled into us ( "If you screw this up, you're looking at *insert relevant UCMJ clause here* and if you're lucky, you'll just get the Big Chicken Dinner!").
It's supposed to be punitive. It's the military. It shouldn't be any other way.
If I had my druthers though, I wouldn't have a UCMJ at all. I'd put all discipline in the hands of superior officers where it belongs. It's ironic how you think the UCMJ is this medieval gallows. When it was first enacted, officers thought it dangerous creampuffery that would undermine leadership. See the classic Naval Institute essay on the subject.
May '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
As stated earlier, fraternization is prohibited, hence both heterosexual and homosexual conduct, i.e., overt sexual conduct, is forbidden. Why then the need to kick Victor Fehrenbach out of the service? In what why did he disrupt "the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale"? If you favor DADT or the previous policy, then you commit yourself to the notion that removing him, and many other similarly qualified personnel, constituted a rational decision.
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 6:52amMay '10
Re: Federal Court Steals Obama's Thunder - Orders Gays In The Military Right Now
Douglas
Michael Labeit
I gather than that you are not familiar with the UCMJ. Its known by us for its punitive and, some say, medieval requisitions. Its far more intrusive and resistant to change than I would suggest you believe. · Jul 6 at 9:31pm
Edited on Jul 06 at 09:32 pm
I served back in the 80's.
Well, then it shouldn't be to difficult to comprehend.