What do you think?

[Eden_Monet]

Just Out Of Curiosity... What Do You Think About The Republicans Voting Against Lifting The Military's Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy?

My honest opinion:

I think it's BS and a total contradiction to what this country was founded on, justice for all. Polls show that 75% of the nation is in support of the repeal and they still vote against it. Most likely something will be done after the midterm elections though.What happened today was a filibuster by the republicans to prevent it from going to a vote.

[pornodave69]

First, they didn't vote on lifting the policy. There's more to it than meets the eye. This wasn't just a bill to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell. The bill is a massive defense spending bill that included a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law.

Democrats had also intended to offer the DREAM Act, a proposal giving young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military a path to citizenship, as an amendment. Plus the bill included a measure to repeal a longstanding ban on abortions at U.S. military hospitals overseas.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid limited debate and did not give Republicans opportunities to offer their own amendments, making it one-sided. Reid himself did not vote for the bill for "procedural" reasons and neither did Arkansas Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, have accused Reid of refusing to compromise.

Democrats played politics with the bill, keeping Republican amendments out for the sole purpose of saying "See what the Republicans did?" Even though their own leader voted against the bill.

[I B Hankering]

@ Pornodave69 +1

[dilbert firestorm]

What were the Republicans proposal regarding the "don't ask, don't tell policy? I've not heard anything on this. is it a straight up "no" on this?

I'm actually fine with the "don't ask, don't tell policy", but I think it does need "tweaking" and the witch hunts for gay service members needs to stop.

oh yeah, I'm also dubious of the "Dream" act. looks like to me another amnesty for young illegals. um, I there is a part of the "Dream act" that is I think redundant. The military already accepts immigrants into their service ranks in exchange for time served for naturalized citizenship. I'm not sure if "immigrants" include illegals.

[pornodave69]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

What were the Republicans proposal regarding the "don't ask, don't tell policy? I've not heard anything on this. is it a straight up "no" on this?

The Pentagon is doing an internal investigation into the effects of changing the DADT Policy. Republicans want to wait until the report is out before voting on it.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'm actually fine with the "don't ask, don't tell policy", but I think it does need "tweaking" and the witch hunts for gay service members needs to stop.

I don't know how much of a "witch hunt" there actually is. If you "don't ask and don't tell" nobody knows so how can you be "hunted?"

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

oh yeah, I'm also dubious of the "Dream" act. looks like to me another amnesty for young illegals. um, I there is a part of the "Dream act" that is I think redundant. The military already accepts immigrants into their service ranks in exchange for time served for naturalized citizenship. I'm not sure if "immigrants" include illegals.

Illegals are the basis of the Dream Act, not immigrants. It is strictly to take those illegal aliens who arrived here as children and graduate from high school, or have a degree, or have served 2 years in the "uniformed services" (military and others government jobs) with an honorable discharge (how does and illegal get in the military or get a government "uniformed services" job in the first place?!!) and make them citizens.

[dilbert firestorm]

All I know is that the DADT policy, if a service member outs him/herself as gay, they are discharged from service with honorable status or if they are caught doing an inappropriate act, dis-honorable discharge.

I'm aware that witch hunts for gay service members were common before mid-1990's, before the DADT policy. I don't know how much a witchunt takes place, but its not what was before 1990's, probably a bit too high. I think they're only given a reason to start looking when there is an unidentified 2nd party involved the inapproriate act in a complaint. Some of the witchhunts seem to occur for the wrong reasons and seems to have to do with personality conflicts, et al, blackmarking attempt to ruin someones military record or career.

I've also noticed that the DADT has been abused by gay service members when they deliberately out themselves just to get out of military service when they decide that military life isn't for them.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by pornodave69

(how does and illegal get in the military or get a government uniformed services job in the first place?!!) and make them citizens.

Back in the day when they issued cigarettes with C-Rats, I went through Basic with a Korean National, but he was legally enlisted and was using the Army as a fast track to U.S. citizenship. Besides, the U.S. Army was much easier than being a ROK conscript. However, I came across this story this past spring. You can't help but feel sorry for this woman: "Illegal immigrant ‘felt the need to join’ Army." By Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times

[I B Hankering]

My post omitted the website: http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2...-to-join-army/

[dosetank]

I agree with PornoDave 69, as well actually there shouldn't be any agreeing or disagreeing as what PornoDave is saying is a fact. This Democratic agenda DADT, DREAM ACT was folded into an original Defense spending bill. For whatever reason, rather than just passing one bill, numerous "add on's" were included that should have been separate issues.

Eden, You Ask us what we Think? This is what I think, that voters should choose their support behind policiticians and any decisions that they make, ammendments/bills with "informed" decisions, and not just merely feed into the few minutes the media covers on a certain topic. This Bill was not merely Don't Ask Dont Tell and actually the Reps position was backing what the military had said is that they do not know how this repeal would affect readiness until they complete their study on it and it was too early to vote on this topic.

What I really Think, That Most people In Congress have no right in voting on Military Policy until they have served. Most have no clue the sacrifice that military members make on a daily basis, I served before Dont Ask Dont Tell and aftewards, and I have seen it both ways, It was better under Dont Ask Dont Tell. There were policys and safeguards put in place (that the military imposed on themselves, believe it or not without congress) to ensure that Head Hunting was not allowed.

If you blanket agree with automatic repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, What do you think will happen to showering and berthing requirements? Women and Men don't shower and Sleep in the same quarters now, Would you like to see defense spending increase to allow for new berthing requirements for a small group. Would you like to hear about accidental slipping and breaking of arms and legs in showers, or an increase in men/women getting discharged for sexual relations? Please don't be oblivious to the fact that a lot of times If it ain't broke dont fix it. I am off my soapbox now.

[I B Hankering]

Part and parcel with serving in the military is following the regulations and directives no matter how inane. Until relatively recently, the misery that is Basic Training has been a common reference point shared by most American males. Today, very few know what it means to do a stint in the service. Dosetank speaks to this above when he suggests members of Congress who have not served should not decide for those who are serving. Since Vietnam, only about 9% of the population knows what it means to shoulder a weapon when the president calls [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce..._the_military].

These seemingly inane regulations govern hair color, style and length. Facial hair, tattoos and piercings are also governed. Military personnel are told what to wear and when and how to wear it. They are told when to get up and when and where to go to sleep. Military personnel aboard a naval vessel or in a garrison environment are afforded less personal space than a convicted felon serving time in prison. It’s the only job I know of where you might be shot because you do go to work or be shot because you did not go to work. One cannot be a communist or a member of any party that avows the overthrow of the government of the United States. First Amendment rights simply do not extend to military personnel—ask SP4 Manning or Gen McChrystal.

Furthermore, these regulations extend to sexual proclivities. While it obvious that everyone knows being gay is against regulations, few are aware that committing adultery is also against regulations. The only sex licensed by the U.S. military is with a legal spouse, and even that was against regulations while deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Like dosetank, I served both before and during DADT. I too found DADT acceptable and believe I would have been among those who would have had great difficulty sharing quarters—let alone a shower—with an openly gay male; especially, if that male’s behavior closely approximated the effeminate, limp-wristed stereotype.

Furthermore, as Dilbert Firestorm noted, DADT has been abused. I personally know of two cases, one male and one female, where the individuals involved announced they were gay when they were called upon to deploy to places they did not want to go. In both cases, there was some real doubt as to whether or not they were actually gay, but the unit commanders had to take them at their word. However, I also witnessed the military’s weight control program used in the same way, i.e., gain weight and get discharged for being too fat.

On another note Eden, when I read your statement, “a total contradiction to what this country was founded on,” I tried to remember if I had ever heard of a gay Founding Father. Try as I might, I couldn’t think of one. Yet, I knew Benjamin Franklin was a lusty, bawdy, adventurous man; who, perhaps like his French contemporary Voltaire: “Once a philosopher, twice a pervert,” was game to do anything once. So, I did a web search. I found nothing about Franklin, or any other Founding Father, being homosexual. Hence, I believe DADT was also practiced at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

What I did find was this, per Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, “The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not apply to an era [the colonial period] that had not yet articulated these distinctions.”

On June 26, 2003, in JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER, PETITIONERS v. TEXAS, Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion of the Court.

“ . . . there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Beginning in colonial times there were prohibitions of sodomy derived from the English criminal laws passed in the first instance by the Reformation Parliament of 1533. The English prohibition was understood to include relations between men and women as well as relations between men and men. See, e.g., King v. Wiseman, 92 Eng. Rep. 774, 775 (K. B. 1718) (interpreting “mankind” in Act of 1533 as including women and girls). Nineteenth-century commentators similarly read American sodomy, buggery, and crime-against-nature statutes as criminalizing certain relations between men and women and between men and men. See, e.g., 2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law §1028 (1858); 2 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 47—50 (5th Am. ed. 1847); R. Desty, A Compendium of American Criminal Law 143 (1882); J. May, The Law of Crimes §203 (2d ed. 1893). The absence of legal prohibitions focusing on homosexual conduct may be explained in part by noting that according to some scholars the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century. See, e.g., J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J. D’Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“ The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions”). Thus early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally. This does not suggest approval of homosexual conduct. It does tend to show that this particular form of conduct was not thought of as a separate category from like conduct between heterosexual persons.

“Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions for which there are surviving records were for predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent, as in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

Thank you, Eden, for your question.

[dosetank]

Well said IB. I couldn't have said it any better.

[DanteHicks]

In this supposed "enlightened" age, that anyone's sexual orientation (or religious affiliation or race...) would be a matter of anyone else's concern is ludicrous.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as your actions don't infringe on someone else's personal liberties, then you're free to go about your business. Frankly, the vast majority of the loudmouths out there bandying about the term "un-American" have very little idea of what that truly means and are often guilty of it.

[pornodave69]

Originally Posted by DanteHicks

In this supposed "enlightened" age, that anyone's sexual orientation (or religious affiliation or race...) would be a matter of anyone else's concern is ludicrous.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as your actions don't infringe on someone else's personal liberties, then you're free to go about your business. Frankly, the vast majority of the loudmouths out there bandying about the term "un-American" have very little idea of what that truly means and are often guilty of it.

I don't think it's "a matter of anyone else's concern" that is the driving factor, nor do I think it's an issue of "homophobia" or "gay people can't fight" or any other lame excuse one can think of. In it's simplest form, I think it's more an issue similar to men and women not sharing the same room or showering together. What straight man or woman wants a member of the same sex checking him/her out in the shower with lust in their eyes? Who wants sexual advances from a gay person if you're straight?

By default, if men or women who are attracted to members of the same sex are allowed to be together in "compromising" situations, i.e., naked in a shower, then shouldn't straight men and women be allowed to? The difference is that while many guys might not necessarily mind that situation, I think most, if not all, of the women would be against it for the very same reason. So why should a straight person be subjected to the same unwanted advances or put in an uncomfortable situation?

[I B Hankering]

Are gays asking for preferential policies and regulations that do not apply uniformly to heterosexual military personnel? Again, DADT really applies to all extramarital relationships. Here are some examples of heterosexual relationships that have ended (or will end or set back) military careers.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

4-Star General Relieved Of Duty


Rare Move Follows Allegations of an Extramarital Affair


By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 10, 2005

In a rare move, the Army relieved a four-star general of his command amid allegations that he had an extramarital affair with a civilian, Army officials said yesterday.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080900515.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++



Prostitution now punishable under UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]

January 24, 2006

Patronizing prostitutes just got more costly
New rule means those convicted face dishonorable discharge, jail

By Karen Jowers
Marine Corps Times staff writer

Service members now may pay dearly for hiring a prostitute.
Under a change in the Manual for Courts-Martial, troops who patronize prostitutes can receive a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and up to a year in jail.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...le-under-UCMJ&



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

Pregnant in combat? Not anymore…

December 23, 2009

A gripping first-hand account of the Iraq War by former Marine Sergeant Mark Perna




The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Major General Anthony Cucolo passed a new policy which may mean time in the brig for soldiers, airmen, and Marines who become pregnant while on active duty in a combat zone. This issue presents so many moral, tactical, and ethical problems I can’t possibly cover them all.
There is the issue of personal freedom, the issue of husband and wife deployed together, the issue of rape, the issue of accidental pregnancy…
Where do we draw the line? Let’s talk about the nature of military service.
Service in the military means that you are not a private citizen any longer. It costs roughly $250,000 to basically train a soldier or Marine for combat in an infantry role. Female soldiers are usually trained for other jobs, some of which may cost substantially more to train for.



http://www.dontevercallmeahero.com/2...ant-in-combat/





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++







Amphib CO, XO fired in fraternization case


By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 11, 2009 13:00:41 EST

The commanding officer of the dock landing ship Fort McHenry was fired Friday for fraternizing with a sailor on his ship, according to a Navy statement. The executive officer also was fired for knowing about the relationship and not taking action, the statement said.


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/1...fired_121109w/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++


Relationship leads to ouster of air wing command master chief

By Corinne Reilly
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 9, 2010
VIRGINIA BEACH
A command master chief at Oceana Naval Air Station has been relieved of duty for carrying on an inappropriate relationship with a female first class petty officer, the Navy said Friday.
Donald Engstrom, the top enlisted sailor at Oceana's Carrier Air Wing 17, has been given nonjudicial punishment under the Navy's anti-fraternization
policy, officials said in a news release. Fraternization is a military term for relationships that do not respect differences in rank.
Engstrom's removal, made official Wednesday, marks the third fraternization-related case in Hampton Roads that the Navy has announced in the past month.


http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/air-...fraternization

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

Female Officer Fraternization Cases A Serious Problem.

Sunday, January 27, 2008


On March 16, 1997 Lt. Col. Karen Tew found her 19-year career as an Air Force officer over. It was destroyed by her admission that she had an improper relationship with an enlisted man.

As soon as her guilty plea and dismissal were upheld on automatic appeal Colonel Karen Tew would lose her rank and all her benefits, including her military life insurance and death benefits for her survivors.

http://cgachasehall.blogspot.com/200...ion-cases.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

[Outdoorsman]

I think I am sick of politics, nothing seems to be about what is good for the people, just how do I get my agenda to pass.

Really I am tired of the BS that comes out of Washington!! That's truly what i think!!!