Did anyone see what happened?

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Tuesday U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips found the don't ask, don't tell military policy unconstitutional in September. The judge rejected administration delay and ordered all enforcement to cease immediately.

To many of you, it may not be a big deal but it really is.

See the courts don't have power to tell the president or congress what to do in this case - it is a policy matter. The military is out of the hands of the courts with regards of policies and regulations that have to do directly with the military. The constitution directly addresses this by putting the power in the hands of congress and the president and the only thing that the courts can do is simply address court martial cases.

What congress needs to do is impeach the judge and force the president to address the issue with the congress. I really hope this happens, the judge knows better but I feel Obama will let this stand and it will open the door for a lot of damage to our military.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
You are right Greg, the court has no power in this, and that is why barry is appealing it.....you haven't heard about that much either....can you imagine how the libs and gays would be screaming if this was bush appealing a ruling like this.....but media will keep it quiet on the back pages for barry, espeically right now this close to the mid term elections......
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I haven't heard the media being quiet on this at all. Of the major news outlets, all of their Top 5 Stories include this one.

This is just one more case of a special interest group trying to use the courts to force their deal onto the majority. The judge stated the policy was unconstitutional because it violated the Civil Rights of homosexuals. Funny in that Gay Rights isn't a Civil Rights issue, but it's the Gay Rights Agenda that is pushing to equate the two. In her ruling, the judge said that the law, "infringes the fundamental rights" of current and prospective service members." What fundamental rights are those? To let people who will kill you for being gay know you are gay? <snort>

Some kid at Rutgers was secretly videotaped having sex with another man. He got from New Brunswick, NJ to the George Washington Bridge and jumped off, because he was bullied (and apparently because he wasn't aware that the Verazanno-Narrows Bridge was taller, closer, and easier to get to). Homosexuals want the videotaping itself to be a Hate Crime. Some are even calling for murder charges.

Puhleeze. Welcome to life. People get bullied and treated unfairly all the time. This is what you get when you have schools playing Musical Chairs with the same number of chairs as people. This is what you get when you have sporting events where the score isn't kept and everybody gets a trophy. This is what you get when you remove Dodgeball from gym class. This is what you get when a liberal society fails utterly to prepare its children how to handle adversity.

People who are different, and that includes homosexuals, are going to be laughed, made fun of, and sometimes bullied. That's the way it goes. Rightly or wrongly, that's the nature of humans, it always has been and there's no reason to believe that it will change any time soon. The strong survive and the weak perish, and no amount of guilt trips or legislation will ever change that.

Forced integration and Civil Rights is not the same as Gay Rights. On an overly simplistic level, people of different races, especially once they get to know each other, can accept each other, embrace each other, or reject each other on an individual basis just the same as people accept, embrace or reject others within their own race. But this homosexual thing will never, ever be accepted or embraced by society at large as being anything other than an aberration of the norm of humankind and human behavior. And it doesn't matter how badly homosexuals wish it was otherwise, it just isn't gonna happen, regardless of how many policy changed or laws get passed. Human nature says, absolutely, that homosexuality will never be accepted. And oddly enough, for the very reason that the Gay Agenda wants it to be that way, because homosexuality defines who you are and sets you apart as being different. There's different, and then there's different, and people will only go just so far with different.

Here's an update where it talks about the appeal and other issues. Obama considers fast appeal of gays-military order - Politics - msnbc.com

One issue that I think will be very interesting, especially in how those directly affected will predictably react, when and if the policy is removed, either by a judge or Congress and the Pentagon, will those who have been discharged under the current policy want to be reinstated, and have damages and compensation paid to them? They're already thinking that way....

Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., said he'd love to re-enlist in the Army two years after being discharged in the middle of a tour in Iraq. But he's being cautious and patient.
"I think it's still way too soon," said 28-year-old Arbury, now a university student. "If I was to hear news that automatically everything would be reinstated, I'd be the first one in the door."
Arbury said he wants to know more about how the military would reintegrate gay ex-soldiers: "If I go back in I want to know, Do I get my rank back? Do I get any damages or compensation?"
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
The way I read it the judge made a ruling on the 1993 law...not the policy....

In Tuesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members.

The 1993 law says gays may serve in the military but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.

After Bill Clinton won the presidency, Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton introduced Congressional legislation to overturn the ban, but it encountered intense scrutiny by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the U.S. public. "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" emerged as a compromise policy
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Ironically, if the law itself is upheld to be unconstitutional, then things would (or at least could) immediately go back to they way they were before the law, where they could ask and you'd have to tell.
 
Top