Found today online:
"Justice Department seeks to keep enforcing 'don't ask, don't tell' for now"
"The Obama administration wants to stick with the timetable set in last year's congressional action to repeal the controversial policy.The Obama administration asked a federal appeals court late Thursday to suspend its decision last week ordering an end to enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars gay people from serving openly in the armed forces."
http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/news/nationworld/nation/...
And the Obama Admin. is on our side?
Comments
Actually there's a new policy...
...that the Justice Department wants to put into place.
Don't you dare ask, and my God, don't you breathe a word about who you really are if you know what's good for you.
Actually it's not really a change in policy so much as a change in marketing; NEW Packaging, same old failed prejudices of the past! This could have been dealt with fairly nearly twenty years ago, but no president and certainly congress has been too stuck in their ways to act. What a shame!
Dio vi benedica tutti
Con grande amore e di affetto
Andrea Lena
Love, Andrea Lena
A couple things...
There's a good reason to keep DADT in the courts - to the Supreme court. As it stands, let the right president and a few more senators get replaced, and DADT is right back... Or worse. Of course, that assumes that we think the Supreme court will rule as lower courts have ruled.
All that said...
DOD DOES have LGB (& T) people (openly) serving today. They have even called back to duty "some" (term used to avoid any actual numbers) Post Op TS people... What's the key? Seems to be - if they have a critical skill or are in a critical job... They can even be T and serve today. *sighs* Of course, none of these people can talk to the media/go public with this information.
Talk about your double standards. :-( It'd be so nice to be able to use these people as "poster children" to show that it doesn't destroy the US military - any more than it's destroyed any of our allies militaries.
Anne
The Unfortunate Reality Is That Bigotry Is
'don't ask, don't tell'
Can you please use black mail on any member of the LGBT comunity that serve in the army, that got there status leek to some not so scrupulus person ?
For me that rule is not only stupid, but it's dangerous for every body !!
tmf
That IS...
That IS one of the issues/reasons for the "rule" against LGBT service - one that's not talked about.
But, there are any more issues in the same category. ANY of which leave the individual (civilian or military) open to the threat of blackmail.
That said, You'd be surprised at the kind of things that are "okay" when a security clearance is concerned. For example. One officer I served with was worried about his clearance. Why? His dad's brother was a Colonel in the East German Army (we're talking Cold War here)... He was told that it was a non-issue, because he came clean with the info.
With ANY regulation against service, any unknown LGBT service member is a security risk for the reason you specified... IF some foreign power (or A Murdock Reporter) should find out about it.
Anne
"DADT...for now"
"DADT...for now" from what I read this morning it makes sense in that the DOD has an agreed upon schedule and is duly implementing it per schedule. The White House has asked that they stick to the agreed upon schedule rather than declare it void and let things develop willy nilly. I feel that this is handling it in a planned and responsible manner.
Anybody who has been in the military has probably endured sensitivity, human rights and other mandated training, now they have another class they have to get signed off on though I would love to be a fly on the wall as this gets delivered by a Marine drill instructor.
Not really
Schedule? Not really... Dragging Heals is far more accurate...
Annette's Right
If you read a little further in the article, you'll find that the "schedule" includes these wonderful tidbits:
"It provides a grace period for retraining to integrate gay service members, and a 60-day evaluation to certify that the change won't hurt military readiness."
and
"Under the deferred repeal, President Obama, the Defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must sign off on the certification that the military is thoroughly prepared for the change."
Now, at two different points the military has to "certify" the actions or nothing happens, DADT goes forward. I, for one, do not intend to hold my breath waiting on that certification.
* * *
"Girls are like pianos, when they're not upright they're grand!" Benny Hill
Karen J.
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Justice Department seeks to keep enforcing DADT
Silly and stupid to ban someone from serving just because f their sexual orientation.
May Your Light Forever Shine
May Your Light Forever Shine
On another front...
At least in the Air Force, July 16 edition of AF Times, there are personnel who are working hard to prove that they qualify to be discharged under DADT. Of those I would question their motives, but that is just me.
That's great!
This illustrates one of the big military (as opposed to social, or moral) disadvantages of the policy. If it gets to be a big enough issue you'll have military officers arguing to drop the policy and let gays serve openly in the military.
If nothing else it gives people who'd otherwise be afraid to be tagged as "gay" an excuse to safely oppose the DADT policy.
That Reminds Me Of Klinger On M*A*S*H
While I hate to say it
There actually are valid reasons, for a general or some DoD official to oppose allowing gay and (and the rest of LGBT community) openly serve in the military.
The problem is that currently the U.S has a military culture which for all its faults (which are many, and I'm not even convinced their attitude towards gays is the worst one) currently works. In order to let gays openly serve in the military you'd have to destroy the current military culture and build a new one. While you're rebuilding the military culture you'd have a military which is far less effective than it could be and these people's job is (supposed to be at least) keeping the military as effective as possible so they should be arguing against anything that will reduce it's effectiveness.
This does not mean they shouldn't be overruled of course (The U.S can deal with a temporary reduction in the effectiveness of the military, especially if it makes it stronger later on and even more especially if it makes the U.S's current enemies less likely to pause and think), or that there aren't some who are arguing out of biggotry without having thought through the issues involved.
Panties to my draft induction
In 66' I came close to wearing a bra and girls panties to my draft induction, but I was told that I would get a psych deferment and never be able to have a real life, ever. Several of my friends ran off to Canada and I was sorely tempted, but didn't out of fear of the Uncle Sam boogy man.
I am all for serving my country but Vietnam was just dirty and wrong. So many of our sons were hurt in that war, and for what?
Pretty Stupid to begin with
DADT was just a way to allow the already serving gays to continue to serve and to try to tone down the bigoted persecution of them. The bigots lost a big battle with allowing women to serve With DADT the bigots had to prove you where gay and could not ask first, Overly simple I know but it is the basics.
With out DADT and a serve opnenly policy the bigots can not do much more than be sneaky with their hate and they can be disaplened if caught.
If there have not or are not now any type of LGBT folks who voluteered to serve and have served with honor than I guess the bigots are right, but I know that they are wrong.
The military needs to change very little to allow open service. Every one is still trained the same, same clothes, same guns ect. Perhaps one new rule or even better a new guide line for no PDA's(public displays of affection)
I really do not think that there will be alot of BS in the field. I really don't believe that those who have seen thier squad members blown up or bleed out will lose respect for Seargent Suasage Smugler when they find out that he is gay. But some or most just wont want to watch him snoging the corporal
James
It's not a question of respect
A Sgt. and a Cpl. in the same unit who are in a romantic relationship can be arrested and tried for various offences depending on the precise circumstances and the type of unit. Note I did not make any mention of the gender of either. Currently the U.S military's procedures for dealing with romantic relationships (and sexual harrasment and a host of related issues) in combat units where you're going to have physical contact between troops as a matter of course is to ban women from them and pretend there's no such thing as gays.
Assuming they were to change the rules they'd need to come up with regulations for fraternazation, investigating sexual harrasment and so on - then figure out the unanticipated consequences of these regulations and revise them accordingly.
Changing the rules to allow LGBT to serve openly would not be easy and would cost a lot (hopefully only money) but it needs to be done and waiting is not going to make it cost less.