Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

So, let's talk about this issue: is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy a good thing? I don't really have any opinion on the issue, but I can't think of too many reasons why gays should not be allowed to openly serve in the military.

And to give this discussion a little bit of context, here is a piece of news:

Quote: Court hears motion to dismiss challenge to anti-gay military ban
Sodomy decision plays role
By Bob Roehr and AP WIRE
Originally printed 7/14/2005 (Issue 1328 - Between The Lines News)

BOSTON - Only Congress can undo the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gay service members, a prosecutor argued July 8 in urging a federal judge to dismiss Cook v. Rumsfeld, a legal challenge to the antigay military policy.

Last December, a dozen former soldiers dismissed from the military for being gay sued, saying the 12-year-old policy is discriminatory.

The legal wrangling played out in a Boston courtroom for an hour and a half before federal Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. Friday. He did not issue a ruling on the matter and gave no indication when he might. Regardless of the outcome, it is likely that one party or the other will be dissatisfied and a series of appeals to higher courts appears inevitable.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark T. Quinlivan recited a list of circuit court decisions on gays in the military, "all of which concluded that the earlier military policy regarding homosexual conduct survived the very same constitutional challenges raised by the plaintiffs here today." He argued that nothing has changed since then and the case should be dismissed.

He minimized the importance of the 2003 Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, which threw out state sodomy laws, because "it did not alter the standard of review" when addressing the class of persons known as homosexuals. Furthermore, he argued that Lawrence did not apply within "the unique circumstances of military life."

Quinlivan said any changes must come from Congress, not the courts. He said "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", passed in a bipartisan vote in 1993, was debated extensively before being

approved by Congress and signed by President Clinton.

Back in 1993 Congress found that excluding openly gay Americans from serving in the military was necessary to preserve unit cohesion. Quinlivan said the court should defer to their findings. He noted that a bill has been introduced in Congress to repeal the policy and that is the proper forum to address such changes.

"To say the case should be dismissed is not to say the debate on Congressional policy ends," Quinlivan said, noting there is pending legislation to repeal the law. "It is only to say it

should be returned to the branch of government where it should be appropriately decided."

Constitutional rights issue

But a lawyer for the 12 former service members said the deference courts traditionally give lawmakers on military matters isn't required when constitutional rights are being violated.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" denies gay service members their rights to privacy, free speech and equal protection under the law, attorney Stuart Delery said.

Delery, arguing for the plaintiffs, said that none of the other cases cited were dismissed but were allowed to develop a factual record through either trial or summary judgment. The precedent from the First Circuit is "that it's error to dismiss a constitutional claim of this type without resort to development of a factual record."

He charged that the government's arguments of deference to Congress and the military "would require the court to abdicate its own constitutional responsibility with respect to these constitutional claims and, improperly, to resolve factual questions on a motion to dismiss."

Delery said that gays and lesbians have served in the military and their colleagues have known that they were gay, and there have been none of the problems of unit cohesion asserted by Congress. "The only explanation for the policy's reach and substance is animus of some form toward gay and lesbian service members.

He said all of the previous decisions relied upon the 1986 Supreme Court decision Bowers v. Hardwick, which allowed state sodomy laws against same-sex activity. However that was explicitly overturned by the Lawrence decision in 2003. Furthermore, the application of the Lawrence decision has been affirmed by the military's own appellate court.

In a conversation later that day, C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said, "All of those cases [affirming the gay ban] relied either explicitly or implicitly on Bowers v. Hardwick and that was overturned. It raises the question of whether those cases continue to be good law."

Should the case move forward, Osburn said they would like to learn several things through the discovery process. One is to identify who has made the anonymous statements that have periodically emanated from the Pentagon that some in the military are willing to reexamine the policy.

Another would be to pry out any data substantiating the government's claim that the policy is necessary for unit cohesion. SLDN contends that there is none. Finally, SLDN would like to enter into the record statements from allied nations who do allow gays to serve openly in their militaries.

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=15012

[d357r0y3r]

It's more of an issue of, you know - why does it really need to be a point that comes up? I mean, it's just not right to straight up say, hey - don't let anyone know you're gay. At the same time, you don't feel the need to let people know you're straight, necessarily.

[Melchior]

I think it's a humiliating policy, for the US I mean.

[Lord Hargreaves]

"Don't ask, don't tell" means we don't care if you're gay, so please don't tell us. Whats the problem with that?

[StrangerWitCandy]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: "Don't ask, don't tell" means we don't care if you're gay, so please don't tell us. Whats the problem with that?

the problem is when someone finds out the person is gay, that gay person is discharged

[Lord Hargreaves]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: "Don't ask, don't tell" means we don't care if you're gay, so please don't tell us. Whats the problem with that?

the problem is when someone finds out the person is gay, that gay person is discharged

How does one find out without that person revealing it?

[StrangerWitCandy]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: "Don't ask, don't tell" means we don't care if you're gay, so please don't tell us. Whats the problem with that?

the problem is when someone finds out the person is gay, that gay person is discharged

How does one find out without that person revealing it?

maybe they're suspicious. maybe they find a picture of him and his boyfriend together. maybe they find a letter he's written to his boyfriend. maybe he DID tell someone he was gay (GOD FORBID!). does it justify taking a honorable fighting soldier, who may have helped saved many lives of civilians as well as fellow soldiers, and sending him home at a time when we need all the help we can get?

[d357r0y3r]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: "Don't ask, don't tell" means we don't care if you're gay, so please don't tell us. Whats the problem with that?

the problem is when someone finds out the person is gay, that gay person is discharged

How does one find out without that person revealing it?

maybe they're suspicious. maybe they find a picture of him and his boyfriend together. maybe they find a letter he's written to his boyfriend. maybe he DID tell someone he was gay (GOD FORBID!). does it justify taking a honorable fighting soldier, who may have helped saved many lives of civilians as well as fellow soldiers, and sending him home at a time when we need all the help we can get?

You know, this isn't just a "We hate gay people" policy. The fact is, you're going to feel uneasy when you're showering, fighting , and basically doing everything with someone who is attracted to your own sex. Is it wrong to think this? I don't know. Can I understand it? Yes.

[Melchior]

d357r0y3r, that "issue" can apply to women in the military.

How do you think gay men manage in the showers and locker rooms of everyday gyms or other such facilities?

[Nelson]

Melchior wrote:
How do you think gay men manage in the showers and locker rooms of everyday gyms or other such facilities?

By not telling other men that they are gay, or by only changing in front of men who are comfortable with gay people?

Melchior - why do men and women all over the country have separate bathrooms and lockerrooms? Why do men and women in the military have separate bathrooms and lockerrooms?

Many people feel uncomfortable changing in front of those who they think are attracted to them - regardless of your own opinion. Just as D357r0y3r said, it isn't a "We hate gay people" policy.

There are few people who would like to have hundreds of thousands of more soldiers in our military like I would, but still - we have this policy for a reason, and it's a logical reason. Once our country can make some reforms such as creating only unisex lockerrooms and bathrooms, and public showers - then maybe we can have gay people open in the military.

[Melchior]

You think in the future we can have co-ed locker rooms and showers?

Like Starship Troopers. :P

[PrinceJunius]

d357r0y3r wrote:

You know, this isn't just a "We hate gay people" policy. The fact is, you're going to feel uneasy when you're showering, fighting , and basically doing everything with someone who is attracted to your own sex. Is it wrong to think this? I don't know. Can I understand it? Yes.

You know, the two most powerful empires in the history of this planet (the Greeks and the Romans) actually encouraged homosexuality within their ranks, and I don't see any "Ew, there are gay people around, I cannot fight Emperor Caeser!!!" in the history books.

Just a thought. Personally, I don't think we should be rewarding bigots in the military. They're the ones who should get kicked out if they don't like fighting with certain people.

[SavannahMan]

PrinceJunius wrote: d357r0y3r wrote:

You know, this isn't just a "We hate gay people" policy. The fact is, you're going to feel uneasy when you're showering, fighting , and basically doing everything with someone who is attracted to your own sex. Is it wrong to think this? I don't know. Can I understand it? Yes.

You know, the two most powerful empires in the history of this planet (the Greeks and the Romans) actually encouraged homosexuality within their ranks, and I don't see any "Ew, there are gay people around, I cannot fight Emperor Caeser!!!" in the history books.

Just a thought. Personally, I don't think we should be rewarding bigots in the military. They're the ones who should get kicked out if they don't like fighting with certain people.

They also encouraged raping and pillaging -

I guess I would like to see a link stating that the Roman army encouraged homosexuality in the ranks - not that it would mean much even if true.

[connermt]

d357r0y3r wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: "Don't ask, don't tell" means we don't care if you're gay, so please don't tell us. Whats the problem with that?

the problem is when someone finds out the person is gay, that gay person is discharged

How does one find out without that person revealing it?

maybe they're suspicious. maybe they find a picture of him and his boyfriend together. maybe they find a letter he's written to his boyfriend. maybe he DID tell someone he was gay (GOD FORBID!). does it justify taking a honorable fighting soldier, who may have helped saved many lives of civilians as well as fellow soldiers, and sending him home at a time when we need all the help we can get?

You know, this isn't just a "We hate gay people" policy. The fact is, you're going to feel uneasy when you're showering, fighting , and basically doing everything with someone who is attracted to your own sex. Is it wrong to think this? I don't know. Can I understand it? Yes.

Statics show us that approx 10% of the population is gay. So are you uncomfortable or uneasy during 10% of your regular day, thinking that someone is 'eyeballing' you? I can guarantee that if a gay person thinks you are attractive, just because they are standing next to you or in the same shower room doesn't really increase how they feel about you. Also, not all gay people are sexual freaks - meaning that just because they see you naked, doesn't mean they will attack you & 'have their way with you'.