Judge Rules “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy Unconstitutional

so Justin… how does someone stating their opinion make them a Communist… im pretty sure Communism practices STRICT censorship. As a current US Marine I have to agree with Phil’s viewpoint. repealing DADT will NOT strengthen the power of our Military. if anything it will weaken it. on another note.. The integration of the Military in the 1950′s was vastly different from repealing DADT. African Americans had suffered severe persecution after they were released from slavery. they went through everything from Jim Crowe Laws to run ins with the Ku Klux Klan. When homosexuals are treated anywhere CLOSE to the way African Americans were treated then you can compare. (this all coming from a white southern male)

BOOYAH!!

Ben, you have no way of even proving your opinion. Until DADT is removed, you wouldn’t know. And again, it’s unconstitutional. So it really is a moot point.

so what?Ben

Well with all the comments we should give every enlistee a lie detector test and one of the questions should be ” have you ever engaged in or thought about having sex with any person of the same sex.”?
This would be a fair question if any person who entered the military could be a potential risk to our countries security.
Hmmm this doesn’t sound fair either….
Now lets get this right, other than blackmail, if a person was ashamed of being gay, biologically there is no reason to keep anyone out of the armed service unless they commit an overt act while in uniform, simple.

The only reason that someone’s homosexuality would have any effect on “group cohesion” is due to the extreme homophobia practiced at nearly all levels of the military — during military training, anyone struggling or falling behind is taunted with gay slurs, and the culture is fuelled by testosterone. Change that (well past time, in my opinion), and you make the road much easier for gays to serve. But the upper ranks need to be on board before any of this happens. If the order comes down from the top, there’s some enforceability to it–the military is the epitome of “do it or else!”

That is this judges OPINION Nothing more…there are many OPINIONS on the other side as well.
Why are they NOT given the same weight? Someones sexuality is none of my business. I resent having homosexuality shoved down my throat like it is some main stream practice. IT IS NOT!!!! IT IS AN ILLNESS…

THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET! WHAT ELSE WILL GAY PEOPLE WHINE ABOUT NEXT!

There is no way that openly gay males would not be attracted to straight males in the shower rooms like it or not , If a person is a gay male then he likes men not too much math to do here , The military will have to build seperate showers so all of the gay men can shower together as they would have it and leave the straight males to shower together as they would have it , because if this does not happen your going to have problems , because straight do not want gay male looking them in the shower with their gay thoughts clearing on their minds and faces , say what you want but I love women so If I could shower with them it would be heaven, so why would a gay male feel different about being able to show with straight males.

If you are gay then good for you but don’t expect everyone to be okay with that lifestyle.
What are gay rights really, is that in the constitution? Is being gay the same as being of a certain race? Is being gay akin to womens rights? I don’t think so, so why should it be treated as such?
Look at it in another way, if a man/woman like animals (beastiality) should they also have beastiality rights! Should they be allowed to marry that animal, claim them on taxes, and pay for their health coverage as well? It really is no different as some of these folks are born this way as well. SO REALLY WHATS NEXT!

Well I personally believe that barring a person from practicing law without a licence is unconstitutional too. But that is just my opinion like the one this gay judge has.

There seems to be some confusion on the part of comments above. The issue is not about a right to serve in the military, but the right to free speech concerning things that have nothing to do with the military. Homosexuals have served in our armed forces with distinction for generations. Don’t ask, don’t tell is not about aptness of homosexuals, but about homophobia. As always, conduct that degrades military preparedness, such as harassment, can never be tolerated. But merely being known to be a homosexual is not a conduct issue. Most Americans have gone past blatant homophobia, irrespective of their personal orientation. I think we can expect the same from our military.

A sympathetic, gay, federal judge.

Decisions like this coming from the Federal Judiciary raises serious questions as to the wisdom that judges serve for life. Perhaps the rules should be changed so that these judges with more interest in their own agenda than what the Constitution ACTUALLY says can be removed from office.

The gay phobia thing is eaten away little by little each day. Keep in mind only heterosexuals create homosexuals, so we are to blame if there is a problem with homosexuals oin the first place.
That said, the real problem is treatment of gays in the barracks etc. We separate the sexes for obvious reasons of safety and security (yes, of the women). How do you do that wiht homosexuals? Does a heterossexual have the right not to be bunked with a person who is capabale of being sexually attracted to them? If not, why separate men from women?
And we can’t have an all-gay dorm, can we? Might as well bunk the girls and boiys together.
So, wehn you figure that problem out, then maybe the gay thing is not so bad to implement.

Considering that right now only Iran, Iraq, Libya and the United States forbid men and women from serving openly in the military, it’s about time we change and join the rest of the world. Gays have been in the military since the beginning, and I have not seen one problem with morale myself in the 20 years I served, and in that time I served with ten gay men/women that I know of.

If our military really IS so homophobic that gay people serving openly will cause the whole thing to crumble, kick the homophobes out.
“There is no way that openly gay males would not be attracted to straight males in the shower rooms like it or not”
wow… then straight males are VERY full of themselves. have you seen most military men? *gag* by your logic, we shouldn’t allow straight women to serve alongside men in the military.

I am amazed at the amount of comments here that demonstrate only how unbelievably prejudiced the writer of those comments is.
To assume that someone who is gay is either (1) a hyper-fem drama queen with a shrill voice or (2) a hyper-sexual pervert who has no self control; is to demonstrate the simple fact that you don’t know many gay people. There are lots of gay people who simply aren’t. They are just as capable of holding a professional, disciplined decorum.
Just remember, DADT entails that there are ALREADY gay people amoung your ranks, and showering with you. All DADT means is that the US Government is mandating those people to be either a liar or a quitter. Which is more honorable?

Right or wrong, this is only going to create havoc and disorder in the ranks at a time when we really shouldn’t. We should at least wait until we are at peace before making waves. It isn’t an issue that the guys on the front line should have to deal with right now. It is only going to serve as a distraction.
–Former USMC Sergeant

yet another liberal judge activist making law instead of interpreting it.

I love that we have to re-examine every rule regulation and compleatly change the way every 6 year old precives it. I believe that don’t ask don’t tell was more to protect gays from haters. From what I’ve heard everyone just looks the otherway on this rule now, and that’s fine…. maybe we can talk to the a judge and have the letter of the alphabet rearanged too

A pastor burning Koran’s gets a personal phone call from the SecDef because doing so puts servicemembers lives in joepardy. I can appreciate that since I am currently serving in Iraq. But, I will tell you honestly, it is the exportation of American licentiousness that drives the hatred of the west by Muslims. This judge has placed far more service members lives at risk than the Koran-burning Pastor.

Blame the Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President who passed this in 1993.

The answer is not to have the DADT policy but rather be specific as to what behavior is inappropriate for everyone, gay or straight. For example, it is inappropriate for two members of the same unit to be in a relationship because that introduces the risk that those members will place each other’s safety above the rest of the unit in combat. Doesn’t matter in this example if the two are John and Jane or John and Jason. Unwanted touching, gawking, comments, etc. are also behaviors that are inappropriate regardless of gender or orientation.

I am sorry but as a veteran of this country I know that everyone has bleed and died for the freedoms we enjoy. Black, whites, republican, democrats, conservatives, liberal, and yes gays have bleed and died for this country. So they have the right to serve openly in the military or was the fight in vain. Are we for democracy that fights oppression of others or is it just empty words to use when its something that fits our personal purpose. These same things where said about blacks serving in the military at one time in this country and the majority was wrong about that and those that oppose gays serving openly are just plain wrong. This is America not a middle eastern country and we should not be acting like one.

Let people be who they want to be if they like the same sex so be it I’m strait I also don’t think its a problem if you happen to like the same sex

So many stupid comments…so little time!
First of all, just because you put on a uniform and choose to serve your country does not mean that you check all of your Constitutional rights at the door! Yes, the military is absolutely free to restrict your conduct/freedoms to the extent that they infringe upon unit cohesion and military readiness.
However, during these past 9 years of warfare DADT has been proven to be more of an impediment to readiness than anything else, as demonstrated by the extraordinary number of highly-skilled servicemen and women bounced from the Service for no reason other than whom they love.
Personal conduct should be treated as it always has, on a case by case basis and based on its particular impact on unit cohesion and mission readiness, NOT under a blanket policy of mandated discrimination based on someone’s identification (or even alleged identification) with a group. If your personal conduct, straight or gay, actually causes a disruption in your unit’s good order and effectiveness, then absolutely you should be punished for it. If you are sleeping with a fellow soldier’s spouse/significant other and your infidelity disrupts your and your fellow soldier’s focus on your mission, then, straight or gay, you should be sanctioned for it.
But to DADT doesn’t do that. DADT singles out people based on identification with a group, and punishes them harshly for it. This is no different in any way from good ol’ fashioned racism, ageism, sexism, or any other form of bigotry that excludes/harasses people based on who they are. As with these other ‘isms’, DADT makes no distinction between individual conduct and group affiliation, and that is why it’s wrong.

Wake up people much about being in the military is unconstitutional. You have to do what you are told you cant quit have to watch what you say on and on ..

That should have happened long ago.

See my previous post on Sep 10, 2010 8:31:58 AM below.
Don’t be nieve, even if they drop the DADT from policy, it will in the end make no difference to a gay person being being kicked out.
Case in point under UCMJ’s [Uniform Code of Military Conduct]:
Subchapter Sec Art.X. Punitive Articles
925.125 or ART. 125 – SODOMY
(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 be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Sodomy: “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal” (Merriam Webster).
880. ART. 80. ATTEMPTS
(a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed.
(c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.
OR EVERYONES FAVORITE AKA THE “CATCH ALL”
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
So you see as I stated previously this “Don’t Ask And Don’t Tell” is really meant to protect homosexuals from backlash by others within whom are NOT tolerant and can use other means.
Really think about that, simply removing DADT means nothing in the end and would require an act of congress to remove the articles as stated above.

Bob…The military is NOT an equal opportunity venue….

Put Selma Hayek in a foxhole with me and you can be sure I’ll protect her to the best of my abilities. I don’t care if the man next to me wants to save my hide just because he thinks it’s cute — either way, he’s got my back.
President Obama: you have the power to issue an Executive Order to suspend DADT and have since day one of your administration. You’re just too cowardly to do it.

I’m glad President Obama let this one wind its way through the courts and Congress. Thanks to our *sensible* Founding Fathers, a Presidential Executive Order is overturned very easily: by the next President issuing a new one overturning the last one.
A law passed by Congress to ban a law already declared by the Judicial Branch to be unConstitutional (ensuring that the repeal law will be Constitutional) will not be so easily overturned.

Ryu wrote: “African Americans had suffered severe persecution after they were released from slavery. they went through everything from Jim Crowe Laws to run ins with the Ku Klux Klan. When homosexuals are treated anywhere CLOSE to the way African Americans were treated then you can compare. (this all coming from a white southern male)”
The KKK went after gays just as much as it went after black people. The only fundamental difference was that gay people who could successfully pass as straight managed to avoid the brutal lynchings of the KKK. Of course, black people who could pass as white also avoided the attentions of the KKK.
Much of the “blue laws” against human sexuality were targeted against homosexuals. Most of them had blatant double standards in them, punishing heterosexuals who violated the “sodomy” statute much more mildly than homosexuals who violated the “sodomy” statute.
Only recently have most of those “blue laws” been repealed, some 30-40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended state-sanctioned discrimination against black people. Homosexuals have been treated worse, and for longer periods of time, than black people. Often BY black people, who still have the highest rate of homophobia in the U.S.A.
Your ignorance of the homosexual experience in America is not an argument in favor of your position.

The Judge cited the 1st Amendment and Due Process of Gays and Lesbians.
This doesn’t make sense to me because you can’t speak about Sex or Sexual innuendos at any job. Hence, why all the Sexual Harassment classes you have to take. So there goes that 1st Amendment Argument.
Due Process is for Humans not Sexual Preference. Nowhere is sexual preference found within the Constitution.
It is interesting though, imagine if they repeal it. Then what will the Muslims who serve in the US Military do?
Under Islam they are supposed to kill homosexuals.
Ah the irony of pitting 2 “Protected Classes” against one another. The Liberals have spun a hug web with this and now they’re trapped.