I believe the Constitution starts with "We the People" not with "We the Corporations". A similar case was looked at when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the Court and a dissimilar ruling was made.

answer
 

Why not answer a legitimate question with a legitimate answer.

Obama must have lied when he said a hundred years because as a former constitutional law professor he knows it was untrue.

Re: OBAMA IS CRYSTAL ClEAR
 

Fact is the court overturned part of a law passed in 2002. All other protections are still in place just like they always have been.

Obama lied and he knew it was a lie when he said it.

Funny how the left calls Bush a liar and then slides on the blinders and gives Obama a free pass on everything. I guess two wrongs do make a right these days.

Politifact says it's "barely true" - noting that "100 years" is a stretch.

Here are the details: http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-me...ns-historical/

We The People
 

Then why does he not listen to the people?

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Because his adjenda is his own, not the peoples.

There are many voices to listen to... the progressives want more done and the conservatives less. And the Tea Party people don't think he is the President anyway.

It is a difficult situation....

I want Healthcare Reform but I also want the wars shutdown. I want Don't Ask Don't Tell lifted but I also want Immigration Reform.

Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative

I believe that all the Presidents have an agenda. Regan's clearly was de-regulation and smaller government. I voted for Regan but not because he was for smaller government I just couldn't pull the lever for Carter.

The fact the President has an agenda is not an evil thing.....

I think civilians should not have a say on military matters. Social experiments do not belong in the military. Period.

It is a free country and I can have an opinion. It is not a social experiment as quite a few countries have openly gay service members. You might want to check out what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said today.

The policy was supposed to stop the witch hunts but it didn't. It is particularly bad for a single woman who turns down a date for example...she can be turned in for investigation. How can you prove you are not.

These issues have been widely reported.....

Adm. Mullens has no combat experience. This isn't "other countries". This is the greatest military in history. We should ask real combat commanders what they think about it. Political military people in armchairs are not subjected to "social experiment's" consequences.
All ex-military men in my family are against homosexuals in the service.

And the military men in my family including my nephew currently in Afghanistan do not oppose the lifting of the ban. And what difference does Adm Mullens lack of "combat" experience make? If he had combat experience you would throw up some other excuse.

The United States military is a great institution in which an estimated 60,000 gays currently serve. The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy is very simple

1) The member is found to have engaged, attempted to engage, or solicited another to
engage, in homosexual acts, unless the member has demonstrated, among other things, that he or
she "does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts."
(2) The member "has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that
effect," unless "the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in,
attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts."
(3) The member has married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex

The key part is the unless the member has demonstrated that he or she a person who engages in or attempts to engage in......homosexual acts.

Because of that sentence the policy has actually been called Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue Don't Harass. But someone forgot to tell the investigative unit about the Don't Pursue and Harass parts.

What about the cases of straight women who are harassed and investigated because they turn down unwanted advances from other servicemen?

What should be done about that?

just some thoughts
 

I know my comments will continue to take the original post completely off topic. So, with apologies, I will move on. I am going to ask a question for discussion, for my own education and to hopefully help me gain insight. I know the question of gays in the military is very controversial and personal. That's fine. But it's really not "gays" in the military. The ACLU and other lobbists and civil rights groups are working at promoting and protecting the LGBTs; Lesbians, Gays Bisexuels and Transgenders. That is how the "gays" are identified for purposes of their promotions. Are you aware that the polyamory and non-monogamy groups are attempting to hitch their wagons to the LGBT's trains as well? I just wonder what ramifications this will have, not only to the straight troops in the military, but can you imagine such things as a "gay" being found out by a militant muslim. How about military benefits (housing, retirement, insurance etc) to unmarried, or married gays...my questions can go on and on...so these are just a few of the things that swirl through my head when the topic is brought up. Somebody straighten me out, no pun intended. B.K.

60,000? My my. How and who came up with those figures?

My brother belongs to a couple of military organizations who are vehemently opposed to homosexuals in the service. Again, social experiments do not belong in the military. Don't ask. don't tell, is working fine.

The military is subordinate to civilians. The President, a civilian, is the Commander in Chief. It's at the very core of our country - the way we were founded.

Racial integration was another "social experiment" in the middle of the last century. Lots of veterans who got their panties in a wad over not wanting to serve next to a black soldier or sailor. It was wrong then. That kind of discrimination is just as wrong now.

Barry Goldwater said it best decades ago. "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

Don't Ask Don't Tell is NOT working fine...far from it. But you didn't answer the question I had so here is some more information for you. The ban on gays in the military was not instituted until 1982. After its adoption a study found that while white women made up only 6.4% of the military 20.2% of those discharged for being gays were white women. This has remained a problem under Don't Ask, Don't Tell and later Don't Pursue. This is such a problem that Sec Gates is looking at...From a CNN piece:

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

So again what would you and your family do about a women who is reported as gay because she refuses to go out with someone?

Ok I will give it a shot.... first I had to look up the definition of polymory.. is that how it is spelled. But my take on this is much like the arguments used against general gay rights. Conservative groups throw out a lot of stuff to see what sticks. Like if we give rights to gays the next in line will be the pedophiles followed closely by the human/animal (bestiality).

Taking the easy first gays are not allowed to be married in the United States so the benefit part is simple. Single military people live in the barracks only married people get houses. This simple process applies also to retirement, insurance, hospital visitation etc. The problem also exists currently outside the military on these fronts. As for lesbian, gay and bisexual that is really all one class representing the polar opposites and absolute middle of the sexual spectrum.

After the Supreme Court decision there are no more laws on the books which make homosexual act illegal. However, I believe that there are laws against polygamy. That would take care of that argument.

Now for the harder ones

The military has a ban on adultery which is widely ignored. I know this because my ex brother in-law, also known as the dirt bag, had an affair while in the Air Force widely known nothing done. So that one already exists.

Transgendered is a different class can be straight/can be gay but generally the person feels like they are trapped in the wrong body and spends large amounts of money to change that. I wonder if this is an issue at all?

The last is the hardest...my nephew is in the war zone for the 5th time and I worry all the time about him. When he joined I was very worried but we had a long talk. He wants to do this, he is a lifer and is much happier in the military. Given what my nephew said to me if a gay person signs up and gets captured and killed because he/she is gay then that is no different than another troop being killed because he/she is an American.

Cologal: Thank you for responding. With all due respect, your statement, "Taking the easy first gays are not allowed to be married in the United States..."
Yes, "gays" are allowed to be married in the US. Same sex marriage is allowed in five US states and, just recently, the District of Columbia. The states legalizing same sex, "gay" marriage are Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the US government doesn't recognize these unions. That becomes very complicated which emphasizes my point of what is to happen if we allow the LGBTs into the military with open admission of their sexual orientation.

I get your point exactly about the snowball affect where things become so exaggerated and there is no truth or facts to back it up. I get your point, for instance...if we allow this (insert something here...ummm let's say gays) in the military then baby killers will be allowed. I get that...

BUT I'm not playing on that fear. This is real. Look it up yourself. The organizations that promote the rights of "gays" is called the LGBT. Here's just one link:

http://www.aclu.org/hiv-aids_lgbt-ri...-lgbt-equality

Research it yourself. I hope it's as eyeopening to you as it has been to me.

The issue of transgendered is a point because they are part of the same lobby. It's not a "gay" thing. It is a push for LGBT rights.

If you read for yourself the LGBT agenda, yes, they have their own website, you can find documentation that the "polyamory and non-monogamy groups are attempting to hitch their wagons to the LGBT's trains as well."

Hang with me, because I know it seems like I'm pushing snow here to form that giant snowball you are worried about. But research it yourself. Read, read, read and decide. As for the LGBT, that is fact.

Please forgive me, the brother-in-law part of your reply I don't really understand. "The military has a ban on adultery which is widely ignored. I know this because my ex brother in-law, also known as the dirt bag, had an affair while in the Air Force widely known nothing done. So that one already exists." If nothing was done, what point were you making?

The last part about your nephew made me want to cry. What a patriot. I bet he is your hero. I would have loved to have seen the pride in your eyes when he enlisted. I know you must worry about him. My husband is a superintendent for a general contractor doing the big FORSCOM work at Fort Bragg. I've made so many friends here with military backgrounds and who are now proudly serving and who have spouses serving. First hand, I've seen and heard stories of heroism and sacrifice. I don't for a second think a "gay" can't pull the trigger...that is a silly argument. There are just so many things to consider in the real world with real issuses, real personalities, real hormones, real egos. This world with the young paratroopers for the 82nd Airborne, and Special Ops being trained and Pope Air Force Base where I live.

[QUOTE=bkcunningham1;246764]

I to appreciate your response. My statement about gay marriage did come fro the standpoint of DOMA. I usually look at the "LGBT agenda" thing with some degree of scorn mainly because it has been overworked in recent years. But I will look at the link...Its funny though I had never heard about the transgender issue until yesterday when I sister called me to say someone had brought it up to her.

My point was about the people with multiple partners...happens all the time in the military but the ban on adultery is widely ignored.

As for my nephew I am very proud of him, there was a lot a crying going on when we dropped him off. He told his recruiter I would be coming for the recruiter should any thing happen so far I haven't had to do that. LOL. Today I was at Starbucks getting him some instant coffee just because its from Starbucks he will laugh when he gets it.

Take Care.

The President does not have to eat, shower,fight or socialize with troops. Again, social experiments do not belong in the military. The military is not a democracy. Political correctness is infecting out culture. It should not destroy our soldiers.

So now we all know where you are coming from..... but perhaps you missed the news today. Colin Powell is now in favor of lifting the ban, I think he has some combat experience.

Any answer about the harassment of women yet?

What is that supposed to mean?
Does anybody really take Powell seriously anymore?:sigh:

So let me get this "straight" Adm McMullen can't comment because he has no combat experience and Colin Powell no longer agrees with you so therefore no one can take him seriously.

You seem to shape things to fit the outcome you want to see.


Any answer yet on how to resolve the harassment of women by the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy?

You may not want to hear this but my sources say that women in the service "get over" with things that the men can't. Seems they use their feminine ways to get what or what not, they want. As a women, I think I understand. For every ying, there is a yang.

Donna, that's an insult to every servicewoman who ever had to deal with "Tailhook".

Tell me how a reunion 20 years ago at the Las Vegas Hilton where officers were drinking and partying has to do with ordinary enlisted people doing their everyday duties for their country?

:agree::agree: I can't believe she said that. Not worth my time.

You are joking...you have to joking. Tailhook a reunion...did you not hear about the gauntlet? One of the worse examples of sexual harassment of women in the military and you call it drinking and partying?

You must be from another planet.

Have you ever served in the military?

Most men in my family have served. 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium is just that. Look it up.

Newly sworn in Massachusetts Senator, Scott Brown, was asked today about the military's policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" He said he would have to talk with ground combat commanders about their opinion on the matter before making a judgment. They are the ones that will have to deal with it. (last sentence, my words)

Since the original thread is completely hijacked, I guess I have to jump in:
 

What is the thought over the years as to why the military did not, does not mix men and women in the same barracks?

Let's assume for a minute a reason could be to avoid sexual (guy and gal) encounters....good....bad....consensual....other.

Since it will be openly OK for same sex opportunities to occur in the military....should they not also allow men and women in the same barracks.

I sorta think when these "restrictions" were put in place it was to eliminate sexual encounters.......

so now what?

btk

Excellent response. It seems that Obama is just taking up the causes that were the Clinton's 15 years ago. (Healthcare, homosexuals in service etc.)
I understand that this is a subject that many people do not want to discuss. Many fear that they will be labeled anti-homosexual if they voice their concerns for the military.

I just want to say that I have nothing personal against homosexuals. My family has dealt with that issue over 10 years ago when my married nephew came "out of the closet." Needless to say it was a shock for everyone, including his wife. But he and his long time partner are part of the family now. All of the issues have been resolved and everybody feels comfortable with the situation.
As a person who supports the military and is proud of my family's contributions through the generations, my only concern is the soldier who put his or her's life on the line every day.
I just wanted to put that out there.

Well, if you beleive that our service men and women are nothing more than animals who can't take "NO" for an answer and will rape everyone in sight, I suppose there's not a lot that can be said to change one's mind.

See - the thing is, I know a lot of gays, lesbians and bisexuals (actually it's more accurate to say I *have* known more as many that I've known have moved/drifted away as decades have passed). Over the years I got to know more about those in my family, those I worked with and those I was friends with. The misconceptions and pre-conceived notions are sometimes shocking, sometimes downright criminal.

Women in the military, mixed-race units - they were both called "social experiments" by detractors in their day. The military had a policy of believing that blacks were inferior and incapable of flying airplanes until the "experiment" of the Tuskegee Airmen.

Now the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs says it's time for the policy to go - as soon as they can work out issues concerning base housing, benefits, etc - and now John McCain, who said in 2006 that he would support repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" when the military brass said it was time, has now flip-flopped 100% and says it's not the time.

Can you honestly say that it's "correct" to discharge someone just because of who they are attracted to? Especially in the cases a few years ago where Arab translators were in such high demand and low supply in Iraq, yet kicked out because they were accused of being gay!

There it is again, twisting the subject to include race. Seems every time a liberal gets stuck in neutral, the race card comes up. We are talking about homosexuals in the service?
Again, I personally do not care what McCain thinks about this issue. He was a pilot whose peers were the elite in the service. Again, the only opinions that hold water are the commanders whose troops are actually engaged in the support and fighting for our country.
Off topic: One of my brother's best friends was a Vietnam POW and I can tell you for fact that there is a huge circle of Ex POW's that do not hold McCain in high esteem. They have a code and don't like to talk about it. But it is real.

Donna, you misspelled "libertarian" as "liberal".

My father was career Navy. My brother was Navy. My mom was a Marine. My uncle was in the Air Force and my grandfather was Army. My fiancee has two sons, one who just got out of the Navy and another who is about to get out of the Army now that his Iraq tour is up. Heck, I work supporting an Air Force contract.

You said I brought "the race card" up - you forgot I also "brought" the "sex card" up. Why? Because you might not realize just how similar the situations are. People being denied permission to serve their country because of something that has NOTHING to do with their ability to serve their country.

Also, if you don't like what McCain thinks, apparently you can wait a little while, like the weather in New England, it'll change (and I find that highly disappointing).

So far, the only "put the brakes on a bit" thing I've heard that, to me, makes sense is that the military should be given some reasonable amount of time to work out what it (openly allowing gays) will mean for things like base housing, benefits, etc. Time to develop policies, in other words - and that certainly sounds reasonable to me.