Federal judge enjoins enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
By Brian Schoeneman | Tuesday, October 12th, 2010 | PolicyIn case you missed it, earlier today, a federal court judge in the ongoing suit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans seeking to overturn the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has enjoined enforcement of the policy. This is the same judge who ruled that the policy violated the Constitutional rights of service members in the case last month.
Will the injunction last? That’s hard to say. The Justice Department has not determined whether they will file an appeal, but given the Obama Administration’s opposition to the policy, it seems unlikely that they will do so. And, even if they do, the 9th Circuit is the most liberal of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. While I won’t presume to assume they will not stay the operation of the injunction, I think a stay is unlikely.
Thanks to bipartisan Congressional action codifying DADT after Clinton’s aborted attempt at ending the bar on gays in the military in the early 90s, DoD is unable, on their own, to end the practice. A repeal measure, which has the support of the Obama Administration, Republican Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, is currently working its way through the Congress.
My feelings on this issue are mixed. While I welcome the repeal of DADT – it’s an unnecessary discriminatory policy that reduces our effective manpower and ends promising careers of good soldiers and sailors for an arbitrary reason – I would prefer that this action be taken in the Congress, rather than in the courts. That being said, the Judge here is, in my opinion, correct on the law – discriminating against gays in the Armed Forces violates their 1st amendment right to free speech and their 5th amendment right to due process.
This isn’t a case of judges telling the military what their policy should be. This is a case where a judge has told the military what their policy cannot be – just as they cannot discriminate against blacks, Christians, or women, they can’t discriminate against gays either. That’s why the DADT repeal has support from a majority of both parties, including Republicans. The last polling I saw, from Gallup, had 53% of conservatives, 60% of Republicans, and 70% of Americans overall in support of allowing openly gay service members. In my own experience, I had a colleague in my NROTC unit leave after he was discovered to be gay. This was 1996, so attitudes hadn’t changed very much from the 1992 fight, but I always thought it was unfair. My friend was a good sailor and would have made a good officer and his career was ruined before it even began. In today’s world, where our volunteer military has been stretched to the breaking point, we simply can’t turn away qualified people because of sexual preference.
We don’t live in a perfect world and I recognize that. So while I would prefer a legislative solution to this legislatively created problem, I’ll take what I can get. This is a good first step in ending this policy and I’m glad to see it.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A veteran political professional, long-time Republican party activist and attorney Brian W. Schoeneman has been offering his opinions at Bearing Drift since 2010. He serves on the Board of Virginia Line Media, LLC, which operates Bearing Drift and spends his days representing the U.S. Merchant Marine in Washington, D.C. He hails from Fairfax County, Virginia, where he lives with his wife and son.
Comments
59 Responses to "Federal judge enjoins enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”"
Brian,
I will have to disagree with you on this one.
Whether someone agrees with homosexuality or not, one thing that everyone can agree on is that homosexuality involves a set of behaviors.
The military has always reserved the right to regulate the behavior patterns of its members. The military has requirements that range from height and weight to how much sleep an individual gets.
You are taking the 14th Amendment out of context. Employers have always reserved the right to refuse to hire people based on their behavior. For instance, I know of a company that will fire you if you show up to work drunk.
Are you suggesting that every behavior pattern imaginable is protected under the 14th Amendment?
Not only that, this judge has no right to determine military policy from the bench. How one could look at this ruling and conclude that she is not doing that is beyond me. If you are a TEA Partier who cares about “Constitutional Government” you should care about this.
I have extremely mixed feelings on this. I support the end of DADT but strongly object to open service being dictated by the courts.
If the end is dictated by the courts on the grounds of the 14th amendment or some other aspect of the constitution then where does it end?
I support tolerance as well as privacy in the bedroom. I also support society encouraging monogamous, heterosexual relationships. I object to gay marriage because I think it would be a wrong path for our society to take. If the end of DADT is decided by the courts grounded on the constitution, and this decision is allowed to stand, then the decision can be cited in court battles by those arguing in favor of gay marriage.
I realize the fight against gay marriage is a losing battle, as society is drifting towards acceptance and us old farts are going to start passing away. I’m considering abandoning resistance since, if it is going to happen eventually, who not allow it to happen now?
But I am going to brush the dust off my crystal ball and make a prediction. After general acceptance of homosexuality within our society, we will see a rise in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. We are already witnessing increased drug resistance from sexually transmitted diseases and they are going to become a scourge. I predict a backlash after the majority of society realizes us old farts were right.
Face facts people, male homosexuals suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate then society as a whole. Why? Because they are an extremely promiscuous bunch. If you do not know this to be true you lead a sheltered life and need to go witness what you want to express an opinion about.
Steve, this isn’t about simply regulating a set of behaviors. The military is within its rights to say that gays can’t have sex while on duty, as they do with heterosexuals. That’s not what DADT forbids.
DADT bars disclosure of a characteristic – whether someone is gay. No behavior has to be involved. All someone has to do is to admit they are gay and they will be discharged under the policy.
This isn’t akin to an employer barring individuals showing up to work drunk. It’s more akin to an employer barring individuals who show up to work Asian. Or who mention they are Christians while in the office. Or that they had a date that night.
What kind of uproar do you think would happen if, say, Microsoft instituted a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell style policy for Christians?
I will have to note an edit – I had said before the case was about the 14th amendment equal protection clause. That was my mistake – what I get for multitasking. The actual grounds were 1st amendment and 5th amendment, free speech and due process respectively. The 14th amendment’s equal protection clause applies only to the states, not the federal government.
Military policy isn’t sacrosanct – the military isn’t going to get a pass for violating the constitution simply because they’re the military. They are on the front lines defending and protecting the Constitution, so it stands to reason that they should be following it, too.
Of course not every behavior is protected, but like I said, this isn’t about behaviors.
Once again you follow the liberal MSM approach rather than the conservative approach and assume that because a handful of homosexuals have been discharged that this prevents the military from meeting personnel requirements or deprives us of qualified personnel.
Actually, more people (surveys indicate as high as 20%) will get out and more will refuse to join than we lose with the less than 1% who have been discharged because they broke the rules. Not because all don’t want to serve with homosexuals, no doubt we all have, but because now the majority will be forced to lie. The issue is morality. Homosexuals can serve now, but we don’t have to condone and “honor” their poor choice by calling it something it is not: a natural condition like race. Commanders will have to lie and say that there is nothing immoral about homosexual conduct. Look what happened to Gen Pace the former Chairman of the JCS who merely stated what most believe. Do we really want to get rid of fine men like him in exchange for homosexuals or libertines who don’t care about morality.
Chaplains from denominations that believe in the Bible will not be allowed to tell service members the truth about what all major religions teach about homosexual conduct. They will have to lie or be discharged. Do we really want only Episcopalian chaplains?
Worse still is that valuable training time will now be spent on indoctrinating everyone into the lie that homosexual conduct is normal and moral. Those who don’t follow the dictates will be discharged for telling the truth and/or not promoted for EEO reasons. The majority will have to lie or not serve. How is that a good deal.
As the best leave the service or seek other careers, we will be left with only the immoral and uncaring types to serve. Don’t misunderstand, we will still make our recruiting goals, but with a very different type of soldier. This will be a dramatic change to the composition of the force. The US has always had a strong Christian influence in it to temper the behavior of the rogue element that always manages to get into the service. That Christian influence also protected other religions and their freedoms too. We will now lose that.
Remember what happened to the German Army when Hitler purged all the Christian officers and left only the ones who were scared silent, or the immoral atheist ones. It changed completely for the worse.
Brian,
It absolutely is about behaviors. Homosexuality is a set of behavioral patterns, this is a common sense statement.
Being Asian does not involve a particular set of behaviors.
While being a Christian is a relational state between a man and God.
Homosexuality is truly determined by the behavior someone engages in. I guess it is possible for some to claim that they are homosexual without actually being one, maybe like in that Chuck and Larry movie that came out a few years ago, but that is really irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.
I am curious; being Asian is a matter of race, being Christian is a matter of religious faith. Where does homosexuality fit in?
In your post you said sexual preference, but wouldn’t that qualify as a behavioral pattern?
In regards to the First and Fifth Amendments, I really think that it is a stretch. So now freedom of speech includes behaviors. So where do we draw the line as to what behaviors are protected? As far as the due process clause, are we honestly prepared to suggest that anyone who has ever been rejected from military service because of a behavioral condition or situation has been denied due process?
Many officers and enlisted men of all ranks have expressed concern that giving special recognition and protection to this behavioral pattern will do damage to unit cohesion. So the military prohibits those who practice it from joining the ranks. This policy is not just limited to those who practice homosexuality, it also applies to those who engage in other kinds of behaviors as well. In over 200 years no one has seriously questioned the Constitutionality of that.
Brian. You have demonstrated quite a lot of cheek here, and like others I am torn on the issue but I basically agree with. The strongest argument I’ve heard against the repeal came from a unit commander just home from Iraq. His opposition had nothing to do with the Bible, the “Christian Army” or anti-gay anything. Everybody knows everybody’s business in the military, and this homosexuality in the military is certainly not a new phenomenon.
No, his reason for opposing it was quite pragmatic: “I have enough f’ing drama and BS to put up with the GD f’ing heteros and I don’t need anymore of it from the f’ing gays!”
Pragmatic, indeed. But fair? No.
Dick, do you really want to get into a debate about morality in an organization whose primary purpose for existing is to kill people and break things? I’m not arguing that without gays the military won’t be able to meet their recruiting quotas. I’m saying that turning away qualified and motivated soldiers and sailors makes no sense, especially given the recruiting difficulties we face.
As for the rest of your nonsense, please. Homosexuals are no less moral or depraved than anyone else. That’s a bigoted argument that I’m not going to waste time refuting. You sound like the pseudo-psychologists back in the 1860s who said blacks were inferior to whites because their heads were smaller and thus they didn’t have the same cognitive ability as whites do. Ridiculous.
Steve, you’re falling pray to the old-fashioned and scientifically disproven belief that homosexuality is a choice. It’s not. If it were, you wouldn’t have teenagers killing themselves because they’re gay and don’t want to be.
As for the behaviors “common sense,” everything involves a set of behaviors, from being heterosexual to being a Christian. Some would even argue that being Asian or black or white involves a set of behaviors too. That’s not what we’re talking about. Sexual orientation is not a choice or a pattern of behavior. It’s an inherent characteristic, like race, color, gender or national origin. Treating it like it’s a choice is simply incorrect.
Many officers and enlisted men believed that unit cohesion would be damaged by integration. They were wrong. Many officers and enlisted men believed that unit cohesion would be damaged by allowing women to serve. They were wrong. The military doesn’t really have a great track record when it comes to civil rights.
The first amendment protects speech – it’s speech we’re dealing with here. Not asking and not telling involves speech.
For over 80 years, no one seriously questioned the constitutionality of treating blacks as second class citizens. But then they did, and they won. And now, today, no one holds that view.
I am not up on the rules as they stand having to deal with the USMJ. Having heard a caller on a radio show, and as well following it up with a discussion in the office DADT does not affect USMJ laws. All DADT did was put in a policy of don’t ask don’t tell to actually avoid enforcement of USMJ laws. Could this be one of those hidden things to sway voters in one direction or the other? Maybe some of us are thinking the wrong way. Than again will they try to change the USMJ law, or did they just forget what the actual policy is.
I had noted as well in this article where it states Clinton had tried to end DADT, but this is a little confusing as well, because from what I understand it was his enactment of it with the intent of allowing gays in the military.
The UCMJ Definition of Sodomy
When the military codified the UCMJ in 1950, it broadened the definition of sodomy to include oral sex, sex between women, and “unnatural” sex between men and women.
The sodomy statute, Article 125, stipulates, “Any person who is subject to this charter 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.” It also states, “Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
In reality this could be a good thing as it will keep some sort of discipline in the military and not a bunch of pansies that can’t handle their jobs.
Sodomy laws have been held unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S 558 (2003). The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces has found that Lawrence controls Article 125, but has also said Article 125 is not per se unconstitutional, as the liberty interest protected by Lawrence must be determined on a case by case basis.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Obama admistration appealed this decision. If the president was really all that against the policy he could, as Commander In Chief, end it with the stroke of a pen. That’s how Harry Truman desegregated the military. He hasn’t done that.
Steve, as I noted above, the President can’t end the policy as Congress codified after Clinton’s attempt to end the ban in ’93. In order to end it, Congress either has to repeal DADT or, as the judge here did, it has to be found unconstitutional.
Brian,
You are making an erroneous assumption in regards to someone’s sexual “orientation” by making the comment, “Steve, you’re falling pray to the old-fashioned and scientifically disproven belief that homosexuality is a choice. It’s not. If it were, you wouldn’t have teenagers killing themselves because they’re gay and don’t want to be”.
You have bought into the GLBT PR machine. If you believe what they do then you believe that homosexuality is #1 genetic or innate and #2 irreversible.
Scientific/medical studies cannot prove or disprove point #1 because of flaws in the research methods and assumptions and outcomes don’t hold up when properly scrutinized.
Point #2 has been proven to be false, people can reverse their sexual orientation and this has been substantiated by research. I have known a number of former practicing homosexuals who have done this.
So, if someone can reverse their sexual orientation, then how can it not be choice?
Brian, sorry missed that point.
J.M. Ripley, Just want to add to your comment.
Linked in with the homosexual crowed, there are so many clamed bisexuals. As well there are known cases of married men cross dressing and even getting sex change operations, only to stay with their wives as lesbians. No they never liked men, and that was there intent. Our morality has fallen by the way side and if any thing we look for more excuses normalizing anything.
I don’t like the thought but where does it stop? Are they going to normalize relationships between adults and minors? As sick as it is there are those that have the beliefs.
Even in today’s society, people even of ten find excuse for murderers, or theft. Time after time day after day the excuse for excuse over reason seems to exceed. When does it stop?
J.M., it’s possible for someone to suppress their sexual desires – it happens all the time. Every man who is married does it on a daily basis. If you know “former practicing homosexuals” who do this, they’re just doing what the rest of us do and not acting on their impulses.
I do believe that being gay is genetic and I do believe that it’s irreversible. There are plenty of gay men out there with wives and kids. Same with women. That doesn’t mean they aren’t gay.
There are millions of gay Americans out there who claim to be born that way. Who are any of us to tell them they’re wrong about themselves? Again, all of this is akin to the way whites treated blacks in the 18th and 19th centuries, the false claims made about Asians during World War II, etc.
It’s easy to turn it into some kind of moral argument when you frame it like it’s a choice. But, like I said, no one would be killing themselves if it were simply a choice. It’s not.
Kenny, please. You’re acting like there are no heterosexual perverts out there. Pervs are pervs, regardless of which gender they prefer or don’t prefer. This isn’t a question of normalizing something that is inherently damaging to someone, like an adult/child relationship or murder. Those kinds of slippery slope arguments never withstand the test of time. Look back on all the arguments against integration – the “mongrelization” of the white race, blacks raping white women with impunity, etc. Did any of that happen? No. It’s just the kind of crap arguments people come up with to justify their prejudices.
I get the feeling I’m the only one under 35 in this conversation.
Brian,
There are many blacks out there that say oppression is the reason more blacks commit crime. As well many that feels justified in certain things because of religion. There are people and sects as well that believe in incest and many wives. Some criminals in other areas as well feel they were born to do crime. While you may be able to define a line of where it stops in your book, there are more that push the line to its extent, not just in homosexuality but in other areas as well. Don’t let your age be a hindrance from actually opening up your eyes and going beyond what is right in front of your face, and don’t just take one biased source as word, as you are more apt to finding what you want to find in your own bias, than what is actually out there. Excuse over reason is all it is.
I don’t think my age is the problem. I think your age and the age of others arguing here is. This is a generational issue.
People can’t say they have never herd of a homosexual making comments about trying the other side of the field. As well like I have mentioned above there are those that consider them self bi. If someone is born that way, so be it. But as to your suicide because they are gay, how many are out there and flaunt the fact and actually have the attitude don’t knock it till you try it. Is it really so much of a homosexual thing, or is just a lustful pleasure thing? Just because it is arousing of the thought of being that one guy with three women don’t make that right either. Let’s not forget those that are truly confused to what they are. More and more now it is becoming extremely acceptable to throw children in the mix, not that there aren’t confused enough by there age any way.
Boys and girls genders have always started off at birth by what they either have, or what they don’t have. I guess now you would expect a 16 year grace period so they can chose what they want to be..
Just like change we can depend on. I have yet to see things improving, when is the younger generation going to start. It was our past generations that gave us this great country with their blood, sweat, and tears. At that time it was one nation under God. It has been their future generations that have ruined this country and lost site of what it stands for.
To pull things together a little tighter off of my last post. Some of it is way off topic but goes into an earlier post of Brian.
As this country gets older, we are finding more and more reasons to regulate, and take from one that works hard and give to one that does nothing.
Instead of being handed our rights unconditionally we have to have permission to exercise our rights in which the government seems to regulate them regardless.
It is no longer work for what you get, or the better man for the job, but fairness rules.
It is as well is not just about crime, but hate crime.
Illegal seems to have more than one meaning, and excuses often prevail over reason.
The law is no longer to protect the innocent, but for the guilty to get off on a technicality.
Divorce is running ramped in this country, our morals have long fallen. Children being borne every day with a list of could bees for the dads. Often you could say the way the system is any more with some of the un-Godly alimony and child support that it is actually an incentive. Many in welfare strive because of continuing to have children and the benefits of the added amount.
Simply put, I could go on with policies and moral issues that have changed this country. Every day and every year, it is the newer generations taking control. You all haven’t done squat so far other than to wreck what we once had. So yes this is a generational issue, it seems the older the newer the generation the stupider things get.
Bri,
How do you know what anyone’s age is? I happen to be only 39.
Brian,
Your argument is not holding together very well.
First, you infer that my argument is “old-fashioned.” Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Your argument is just as old as mine.
Second, you contend that homosexuality is immutable. There are many former homosexuals who disagree with you. I don’t think that you know them better than they know themselves.
Thirdly, I am under thirty five. Not everyone in my generation engages in group think.
Lastly, you still have not disproved my original contention that homosexuality is in fact a set of behavioral patterns. Even if we were to say that homosexuality was genetic, it still involves a set of behaviors. Some say that alcoholism is genetic, that too involves a set of behaviors. The military would not necessarily allow an admitted and current alcoholic to join the ranks, because it could do damage to unit cohesion. That does not mean that the military hates alcoholics, rather they are making a hiring decision based on what is best for their needs.
I will close by saying this, the Federal Judge involved in this case is a district court judge. Essentially this is the lowest court in the federal judiciary. She decided that she had the power to arbitrarily dictate military policy, which is the prerogative of the Executive Branch.
To all of my TEA Party friends who are concerned about Constitutional Government. With every court case and judicial degree like the one we have seen here, the concept of Constitutional Government becomes more and more clouded. If we truly care about Constitutional Government, then we should pressure the next Republican Congress to initiate legislation that will lead to judicial reform.
Steve, my argument is holding together just fine. Yes, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. And no amount of criminalization, including the death penalty, has made people “choose” not to engage in it.
I contend that it’s an immutable characteristic. Sure, there are plenty of folks who claim to be “former homosexuals.” People claim a lot of things. And, as I said, I don’t believe that someone who is gay but who has decided to not engage in homosexual sex or have homosexual relationships is a “former homosexual.” They’re still gay, they just don’t act on it.
Alcoholics (since you like to bring this up) are never “former alcoholics” when they quit drinking. They’re still alcoholics, they just don’t drink anymore. That’s why folks in AA say “I’m an alcoholic” even if they haven’t had a drink in a decade.
The whole point of the case here is that the government and the military have not come up with a legitimate, compelling reason for barring homosexuals. And considering that the both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Defense Secretary agree that there’s no need to bar them anymore, it’s hard to argue that there’s some kind of a compelling reason to keep them out.
If the executive is engaging in unconstitutional behavior, it’s imperative for the judicial branch to strike down that action.
You like to say that you’re concerned about Constitutional government, but you’re acting like an Article III judge making a determination that a policy violates the constitution is somehow extra-judicial. It’s not – that’s her job. As Chief Justice Marshall said, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department is to say the law is. That’s what this judge did.
This kind of argument reminds me of the Onion headline: “Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.”
Brian, whether you agree with the policy or not, it’s neither an issue for Congress nor the courts to decide. Given their superior knowledge of the situation, military leaders, and only military leaders, should decide the behavior acceptable from our soldiers and sailors. As I wrote in my own post, the intrusion of civilian courts in this manner undermines the legitimate constitutional authority of the commander-in-chief, and, in the end, our very security as a nation.
Lloyd, the military aren’t the experts on what the Constitution says. And while our current Chief Executive is a constitutional scholar, most of them aren’t. Besides, the UCMJ itself was passed by Congress and can be changed by Congress – the Constitution gives the Congress the right to regulate the land and sea forces.
This is not the judiciary setting military policy. It is the judiciary determining that the current policy is unconstitutional. That’s not telling them what their policy is. It’s telling them what it cannot be. That’s it. They’re free to craft as many policies as they want restricting people from having sex while on duty, and the Articles already include those rules. That’s not being overturned. What’s being overturned a policy that restricts freedom of speech and due process.
Brian, what you’re saying, then, is that the same free speech rights apply in the military context as they do in the civilian context. That’s neither a correct constitutional analysis nor a good policy.
Simply put, the right to free speech, and other constitutional rights, we enjoy as civilians is not as broad as that enjoyed by soldiers. For example, soldiers rightly are limited in complaining about their conditions or their leadership. The purpose behind those rules are many, but, ultimately, the goal is to ensure we have the strongest possible fighting force. Courts should not be second-guessing those calls. Indeed, from a constitutional standpoint, the courts’ involvement in matters of national defense should be extremely limited given the basic tenets of separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.
And, by the way, there’s absolutely no distinction between telling the military what the policy “cannot be” and what it “must be.”
Make that “the constitutional rights, we enjoy as civilians is BROADER THAN that enjoyed by soldiers . . “
I’m not saying that the free speech rights in the military are the same as in the civilian world. Of course that’s not true. If you want to see an in-depth analysis as to why this violates the First Amendment, go read the opinion.
A judge has made the determination that DADT violates the first amendment. The court isn’t second guessing the military’s decision – the military’s decision is that they don’t want DADT at all, as I have noted repeatedly. But they can’t rescind it because it was Congressionally enacted.
There’s no separation of powers issue here. The courts aren’t telling the military “here is what your personnel policy must be.” They’re saying that the current policy is unconstitutional, come up with something else.
If I tell my son he can have any book in the store except one, I’m not telling him what he has to pick. He has thousands of choices, just not the one I said he can’t have. That’s the distinction.
Wow. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation that abounds around this issue, and this thread is certainly no exception. I have to weigh in on this because, 1) I am a retired senior officer who has served with gays in the military for over 25 years, 2) I am quite a bit older than 35, and 3) I followed a DADT policy as a commanding officer for many years before it became official DoD policy by virtue of an executive order.
First, DADT is not law. It is an executive order of the Commander-in-Chief. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is an act of Congress and authorizes the Commander-in-Chief to issue orders and regulations to implement it. Much of that implementation is contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), an executive order of the POTUS. The rest of the implementing guidance is contained in separate executive orders and in regulations issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense and the Service Secretaries. There are no prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military in the UCMJ or the MCM. Defense regulations prohibit homosexuals from serving and DADT restricts how those regulations can be enforced.
Second, it is bullshit to contend that Truman ended racial segregation in the military Services “with the stroke of a pen.” Go read the history. Ending racial segregation began with a commission appointed by Truman in 1945. In 1947, he signed the famous executive order. (Which, BTW, many historians believe was a ploy to influence the 1948 general election.) It was 1955 before all of the Service chiefs reported that they had eliminated all segregated military units and ships. My favorite quote about Truman’s effort to integrate the military services came from then-JCS Chairman General Omar Bradley. He told Truman, “Mr. President, you can integrate the military when you have integrated America.”
Third, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military has little or nothing to do with “morality.” Brian, I cannot tell you how disappointed I was with your statement, “Dick, do you really want to get into a debate about morality in an organization whose primary purpose for existing is to kill people and break things?” Regardless of what you might think, the military demands moral behavior by its service members. It is codified in the UCMJ, MCM, regulations, and international treaties on the law of land warfare. That is why military members cannot shoot prisoners, cannot intentionally harm civilian non-combatants, and cannot gratuitously damage property. Those who do so are severely punished.
Fourth, gays in the military will not require separate billets and shower facilities any more than gays in our society at large require separate locker rooms and restrooms. That is a canard. Also, openly gay service members will not cause declined enlistment rates. That excuse was disproved when we racially integrated the military.
Finally, one of the first lessons that you learn as a newly commissioned officer in the military is to never give an order that you know will be disobeyed. Some situations cannot be resolved by brute force. They require a great deal of socialization of the proper course of action. Obama is right to let the military leadership work the solution to this obsolete personnel policy. Jamming it down their throats by executive order or judicial decree won’t work. To paraphrase Omar Bradley, gays will be able to openly serve in the military when gays can be openly gay in America. As long as we have gay-bashing, the requirement for hate-crime laws, and covert discrimination, then we will have problems with openly gay people serving in the military. Our armed forces reflect the society that they serve and protect. They are no better and no worse than the general population they are drawn from.
HisRoc, my comment there was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if you took offense to it.
I agree with you for the most part, although I have to correct you on the law part. DADT is necessary because Congress codified a bar against homosexuals serving in the military at 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
It was signed into law in November, 1993.
Without DADT, gays couldn’t serve, openly or not. You can’t get rid of DADT without getting rid of 654.
Brian,
I apologize for over-reacting to the “kill and break things” quip. That is a hot button issue for military professionals that goes back to the Viet Nam era when we were called “baby-killers” by the anti-war protesters. As recently as the Iraq War, peace-at-any-cost loonies have published now-discredited “studies” that claimed that millions of Iraqi civilians were killed by US combat actions. The most infamous of these was the Johns-Hopkins study, prepared just in time for the 2006 mid-term elections, that was published in the British journal “Lancet.” The Johns-Hopkins authors have since been academically rebuked and censured.
As to Section 654, I stand corrected and appreciate your clarification.
Don’t worry about it, HisRoc – I was just repeating what an old Marine colleague of mine used to say.
Brian:
You say you believe it is genetic. That is just it, you believe. Science doesn’t agree. If so, evolution would have ruled it out long ago.
Also, yes, the president can rescind the policy today. It is and executive branch policy telling DOD not to obey the law. If rescinded, the law passed by Congress which says homosexuals may not serve period, would be enforced. Obama doesn’t want to do that so is taking a different tack. The law is not DADT, it says nothing about that. It is straightforward and a good law. Just not enforced by not asking the question. Prior to 1993, we asked.
Further, your bigoted opinion which will force Christians to lie about the truth is incredible. You seem to think it ok for you to force your morality on the rest of us. Look, I don’t care if they serve or not. But don’t force me to say that their choice is ok or moral. It isn’t.
Brian:
stealing has been around a long time too. Claiming you are a kleptomaniac and “born that way” doesn’t excuse it. Same thing with sexual perversion. It is a choice.
Kids kill themselves for many tragic reasons. They also choose lifestyles that will lead to ridicule and harassment from their peers. Just look at kids who choose to dress up as Goths or vampires.
Now, if there was a gene it would no longer be present as natural selection would have eliminated it.
Quit being such a totalitarian and forcing us to be brainwashed to think in your left wing politically correct way.. Don’t force your morality on us. Do as you please in private, but don’t force us.
Dick Rotten,
Question: have you ever served a day in a military uniform? If so, what was the nature and circumstances of your separation?
Dick, I’m not forcing anything on anybody.
If the President rescinds the policy, the law I quoted above kicks in and all gays in the military are subject to immediate dismissal. Since you want all gays from the military purged, I can understand why you’d like to see the President do that. But 70% of Americans don’t agree with you.
No one is forcing Christians (of which I am one) or anyone else from saying anything. And you’re free to mischaracterize homosexuality as a choice or whatever you want. No one is born a kleptomaniac, or a pedophile or any of the other philias you want to try and compare being gay with. No one is forcing you to condone what they do. No one is forcing you to watch, or take part, or be around it if you choose not to.
As for your natural selection argument, you’re assuming that homosexuals don’t reproduce. Of course they do.
Nothing I’m saying is “left-wing politically correct.” All I am saying is that I believe in the Constitution and I believe that no one should be discriminated against because of their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation.
HisRock:
The name isn’t Rotten. . .
Yes I served 31 years, two months as an infantry officer of Marines. And yes, I have served in combat. I was honorably discharged and transfered to the retired list in 2005. How about you?
Brian:
Yes it will force us to do or say things. If we say that homosexuality is immoral, like Pete Pace did, we will get fired. if a Christian chaplain preaches what the Bible teaches or counsels a soldier to avoid this behavior, he will be disciplined, passed over or fired. Civil servants will not be promoted if they don’t follow and agree to EEO policies that would change without this law. We will all be forced to attend seminars on homosexuality and tolerance. how intolerant toward the Christians and Jews.
As I stated at first, this will drive the moral people out and prevent them from joining. That will change the complexion of the force. You may like an immoral or amoral military, but that hasn’t been our way for 230+ years. I think it will be tragic.
Dick,
I served 25 years active duty as a Regular Army officer, retiring in 1998.
Your views of gays in the military is rather unrealistic, but I will forgo the pop psychology of how you might have come to hold these opinions in respect for your service. However, I believe that you are on the wrong side of history with your position.
Welcome home.
I think most of you are way off the mark here. The real issue isn’t equality or rights. It is simply fraternization and good order and discipline. The only way to change that is for society as a whole and the military specifically to decide that sex doesn’t matter. Integrating women on ships caused some problems, which for the most part have been overcome. However, integrating homosexuals is a more difficult issue. Men and women use separate berthing and showers for a reason. The same reason applies to homosexuals and bisexuals. You can’t put homosexuals together and you can’t anymore than you can put men and women together.
Most people would be concerned that one woman sleeping in a small space with 12 men for 6 months would have high potential for problems. Don’t you think that 13 gay men sleeping in the same small space would have even more potential for problems? If sex were meaningless, then it wouldn’t matter for good order and discipline, but it does.
That said DADT is stupid and they should be prohibited entirely. Not just because of their homosexual status, but rather due to our inability to alter society and human nature.
No one is going to fire you if you say homosexuality is immoral. That’s your opinion. Pete Pace wasn’t fired. He simply wasn’t renominated when his term was up.
As of now, there aren’t any EEO policies about sexual orientation because sexual orientation isn’t a protected class. That wouldn’t change if this law went away.
No one is arguing that anybody needs to embrace and accept homosexuality. We’re simply arguing that they deserve to be treated like everyone else – and that means they shouldn’t have to hide who they are in order to serve.
Brian,
I wish to bring up the generational discussion brought up earlier. I have three now adult children who think is is “OK to be gay”. Now where did they get that from since they didn’t get that from home? They got it from school. It is what they were taught, and they were not taught this at home.
I think that despite what the NEA thinks, the majority opinion of my generation is correct. Gay men suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate then society as a whole. They think there is nothing wrong with engaging in sex with a different partner every night, if not multiple partners in a single night. This is not a bigoted opinion, it is a direct observation of what goes on as I conduct business in my occupation. My own observations are matched by what I hear about homosexual relationships on NPR (National Public Radio) and on the OutQ LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bi-Sexual Trans-gender) satellite radio channel.
There has to be an explanation for why gay males suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate then society as a whole. I think the explanation is rather obvious.
I believe homosexuality should be as tolerated by our society as adultery is. Heterosexual men, too, have an inborn desire to have sex with multiple partners but this is not encouraged by society, although anymore it is tolerated. Society should encourage only monogamous, heterosexual relationships.
LD, they didn’t just learn it at school. They learned it through watching TV, from reading books, and from interacting with people who are gay.
Promiscuity and having unsafe sex is bad regardless of who is doing it and with whom they are doing it. A guy who sleeps around with a different woman every night is no more moral than a guy who does it with men.
Saying things like “they think there is nothing wrong with engaging in sex with a different partner every night…” is like saying that all Asians are good at math. It’s a stereotype, it’s simply not true in every case, and it’s unfair to characterize all people that way. Some gay men act like that. Most gay women don’t. There are plenty of heterosexual men who do the same thing. Being a slut is not restricted to being gay.
The fact that gays may suffer from STDs more than the rest of us has a variety of explanations, as a quick google search showed me.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but this debate isn’t about whether being gay is a good thing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in that regard. But regardless of your opinion, it is still wrong to discriminate against these folks for that reason. The military already has rules about sex to discourage soldiers and sailors from getting STDs. Those rules won’t change if DADT is repealed.
HR: I defer to your military history knowledge. I just did my four year enlisted and got out.
However, can you clarify this? Is it true that the U.S. is the only NATO country that does NOT allow gays and lesbians to serve openly?
If that’s true, doesn’t it play hell with all the arguments about what repealing DADT would do to morale, enlistment rates, combat effectiveness, etc.?
Steve,
First, let me emphasize that I support allowing gay persons to serve in the military. Over the course of my career, I knew many officers and NCOs who were gay and were high-performing contributors to the mission. I can only imagine how many other great soldiers I knew who were gay and I never knew it. However, as I commented earlier, I am not certain that Americans are any more ready to accept openly gay military members than they are ready to accept openly gay persons in our society as a whole. As Brian has pointed out, we have gay teenagers committing suicide because of gay-bashing. That is not a harbinger of tolerance.
To answer your question, no, other NATO countries also ban gays from their military. Greece and Turkey immediately come to mind. More importantly, I would say that you cannot compare the other NATO countries’ military with the US in morale, enlistment rates, and combat effectiveness. Most of the other NATO countries, for example, still rely on conscription to fill their rather meager force structures. And I would not rate any NATO country as having a combat effectiveness equal to the US. That is not American chauvinism, that is a professional opinion based on over ten years of experience in NATO-related military assignments. The European military is a soft relic of what it used to be and Canada’s armed forces are professional peacekeepers, unsuited for offensive operations. However, let me hasten to add that this has nothing to do with the exclusion or inclusion of gays.
Finally, thank you for your service and welcome home.
HR: I understood your position was not opposed to gays serving.
As for my service, not much to thank me for. Got to see Europe on Uncle Sam’s dime. Also got some discipline at a time in life when I really needed it and got out of my folk’s house at a time, right after a divorce, when it was bad place to be.
I didn’t much like the life at the time, but recognize that a I reaped some benefits.
So, since you’re a military professional, thanks for letting me serve.
Thanks for the NATO info as well. I heard a poltician say this week that the other NATO countries did allow gays to serve openly and wasn’t sure of the truth of it.
From my experience, late Carter-early Reagan era, I’d say gay service members would certainly pose less of a problem than the drug users, fairly common at that time, did.
And I’m not talking about folks smoking a little pot to unwind after a hard day at work. There was a major heroin bus of an nearby Army unit will I served in Germany.
bust not bus
Steve,
Do not minimize your service. It puts you in the top 1% of all Americans in the post-draft era. I personally subscribe to the theory that our country would be a far better society if we limited elected office to those who have performed public service, not just in the military. My wife, for example, is a liberal Democrat who never served a day in the military. However, she spent two years after college in the Peace Corps. Those two years almost alone in Liberia rival anything that I did in the Army. At least I was armed with automatic weapons and surrounded by lots of friends.
You and I might have served in Germany together. I was a company commander there in 1978-1980. Yes, drugs were a major problem. I, with the help of the CID, had the pleasure of busting one of the biggest heroin rings in my corner of USAREUR. The ringleader was a mechanic in my own company. He plea bargained for two years in the gray-bars Hilton at Fort Leavenworth at his General Court-Martial.
As a Vet who was drafted for our “police action” in SE Asia and continued on in the Navy, I can’t reconcile how those who outwardly define themselves in terms of sexual preference can successfully and efficiently relate to those of us who don’t. All social and medical issues aside, inserting a definition of self based on sexual preference into a structured and hierarchical military environment has now become a factor that will force a complete makeover of military training, logistics and traditions in addition to combat stress and fatigue when a unit has people who don’t share the same sense of self as the others.
Yes, we all bleed the same color when shot or wounded, but when it comes down to making decisions and judgments in close quarter combat or ship environments, trusting, depending on and sacrificing for others is how we are trained and how we live where the individual sense of how we define ourselves is changed to a unit sense of how we together functionally accomplish our mission. In other words, there is no “I, me, my, mine” anymore, only a “crew, squad, company, brigade, Division, ship’s complement, unit, Strike Group, Battle Group, Squadron” and so on.
And the arguments for “other countries do it” isn’t relevant here because other countries aren’t the US and none have taken on the commitments and responsibilities which the US military has over the past hundred years. Killing this culture with the stoke of a pen to recognize anyone who wants to define themselves with “individual lifestyle and social preferences” is denying and turning back the evolution of our great military and its culture and is relegating our US Military to the status of countries who have permitted this in their ranks.
Brian,
What you are pointing to is the snowball I see rolling down the hill. It started in the schools, progressed to television and now all of us against gay marriage are described as bigots and homophobic.
OK, the snowball has gotten so large that I am not large enough to stop it by myself. I am going to step aside and watch it continue to roll down the hill until where it rolls through your house.
If I am still alive when you realize your mistake I will do my best to resist the temptation to laugh and tell you I told you so. You young whipper-snappers know better? OK, let’s try it your way then. Perhaps you youngsters will learn from your mistakes. Just, please, keep it in the back of your head that the solution to the new problem might be found in how our species dealt with the problem in the past.
Are you interested in history? How did our species deal with sexually transmitted diseases before modern medicine? They encouraged monogamous heterosexual relationships for the betterment of their societies. Sexually transmitted diseases are becoming increasingly drug resistant. You youngsters are insisting we open up the flood gates.
OK, let’s do it your way. I am confident you will eventually figure it out on your own. But darn it, why do you insist on doing it the hard way?
Hey, how about us old farts stepping aside on this issue right now so we can still laugh at these youngsters before we die?
Would it be unconstitutionality to make legislation for anyone to recognize gay marriage? Is it not against the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise…” If there are laws enacted, would it be disrespecting the establishment of religion?
As for the courts in the military…it’s down to this. The civilian population especially the court system needs to get its stupid hands out of the military. They don’t know what they’re dealing with.
Even though I’m OK with civil unions, as President Obama is. I believe that calling it a marriage to totally unconstitutional and disrespecting many establishments of religion.
Gays exercising openly in the military creates a certain decorum that cannot be tolerated. If this is OK, then we need to start looking into co-ed facilities.
@LittleDavid,
Join us who oppose ObamaCare, the NYC Victory Mosque and Illegal Aliens. While I’m called a Racist, an Islamaphobe and a bigot. Racist is always the default when they can’t come up with something else.
I believe your carrying Tea Party tendencies. Be careful, your new liberal friends over at VBDEMS might blackball you like they do all other conservatives who counter their arguments.
Brian, I am well over 35 and support your position completely. Am amazed at the ignorance and misinformation I read in some of these posts.
My cousin served over 20 years in the USAF. He retired at the rank of Colonel and has been in a committed & monogamous relationship for almost 30 years with another man. He’s not a pansy; he’s not a pervert; he’s not promiscuous.
It’s time for like minded republicans to come out of the closet (pun intended) and make our voices heard, too. While I respect divergent religious views, I do not believe biblical philosophies should trump human rights (or overrule science and common sense).
Gays are not seeking permission to have sex in the military; they seek only the right to serve, without fear of exposure and automatic expulsion for simply being who they are.
Brian:
You finally get the point when you wrote that a man committing adultery is no more moral than a homosexual. Precisely!
The point is that we tolerate adutltery but don’t accept it nor promote it as moral. We tolerate homosexuality which is just as immoral but now will be forced to accept it.
Since most of the things you say are politically correct, you probably don’t realize the tyranny of being told to be silent because you are not politically correct. The vast majority of Christians must now be silent in their service and forced to not only tolerate, but accept sexual perversion as not only normal (despite 0 scientific evidence to support that) but morally acceptable as a valid lifestyle to be honored and taught to children as though it was OK. Seems your logic would say we should do the same with adultery. Oh, sorry you politically correct types already do that.
Dick,
I have to respond to your assertions about “acceptance” and “morality” in the military. I am quite sure that adultery was no more accepted in your Marine Corps than it was in my Army. I saw plenty of careers trashed over the years for this offense. Sometimes it was covered up and sometimes it was openly punished, but it was never accepted.
On the other hand, I was all-too-frequently on the receiving end of superior officers whose concepts of “morality” were derived by their sense of “being a Christian.” Not attending chapel services every week was not immoral, but definitely a weakness. Being a single, unmarried officer in a relationship with a single, unmarried woman, one that could reasonably be believed to include a sexual relationship due to sleeping arrangements on weekends, was most certainly immoral. And, worst of all, being a divorced officer on the dating circuit again was nothing short of a scandal.
I suspect that you were one of those officers who wore your Christianity around your neck like ID tags and did not hesitate to “counsel” your subordinates who fell short of your ideals. I’ll wager that you had a copy of the King James Version Bible somewhere on your desk. And you have the nerve to lecture others about “political correctness?”
Homosexuality is no more “immoral” than heterosexual conduct outside of marriage. If you can’t accept that then the problem is with you, not with those whom supposedly demand “political correctness.” Your problem is that you seem to think that you can impose your “Christian” ideals of morality on others. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
John Jackson,
I have found those over at VBDems to be tolerant of my opinion when our opinions diverge. Sometimes we just agree to disagree.
Obama-Care – I am actually in favor of limited socialized medicine.
Muslim Community Center in Manhattan – The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They’re Sufi Muslims so let them build their community center.
Illegal Aliens – I’m torn by that one. How about a guest worker program? When the unemployment rate goes up, the number of guest workers go down.
We need to be careful to not hijack this thread to talk about unrelated subjects.
Jay D,
While this could be pointed at a few others I’ll pick you out to reply specifically to.
Ignorant and misinformed? I guess I am one of those you describe.
Science and common sense are on your side? Oh no my friend.
You are one of those who attempt to describe male homosexuals as being “just like us” heterosexuals but they love another man instead of a woman. You my friend are the one who lacks common sense or at least enough real world experience to know the truth. Your relative might be the exception to the majority of gay males, but that is what he is, the exception.
Now, my real world experience is in the trucking industry and at first I thought what I saw might just be a stilted example but not representative of the community as a whole. But then I kept hearing NPR (National Public Radio) segments that reported what I was seeing was not unusual at all.
If you profess genuflecting at the science altar alone, then how about conducting some real world scientific research of your own? Go into a gay bar (I am not sure where they are, but know they exist here in Hampton Roads) and grab a seat. If you get hit on, just tell them you’re in a bad mood and not interested. Then observe what goes on and try to explain to yourself what goes on.
The same thing goes on in heterosexual bars? No it doesn’t. Yes, heterosexuals hook up, but there is more of a song and dance involved with the objective most times on the female partner’s agenda is finding a suitable long term mate.
Well that is just subjective judgment and not based on science? OK, statistics show that gay men suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at far higher rates then the general population. What is your superior, un-bigoted, scientific and common-sense explanation for why this is so? I do not think your explanation will meet the requirements of any of the qualifiers I included.
Little David, I stand by my description of ignorant (lacking knowledge, information, or comprehension of the thing specified) and misinformed.
#1: Service to country is not limited to the male species; neither is homosexuality. Any discussion of the homosexual “community” should include gay men and lesbian women.
#2: By nature (and courtesy of a higher amount/ percentage of testosterone), younger males (of all groups) take more risks and are generally more sexually active than their female counterparts. Western society’s norms regarding “acceptable” male and female sexual behavior reinforce this difference (sexually active women = sluts/ sexually active men = ‘sowing wild oats’). This combination may explain the higher % of homosexual males exposed to STDs and give you the answer you seek.
#3: I lived in the San Francisco Bay area before, during, and after the bathhouse closures. I have been in numerous gay bars and was “hit on” no more/ no less frequently than in other establishments. While this may not compare to your extensive experience of NPR reports and truck-stop rumors/experiences, I feel comfortable (at age 53) my “real world experience” is sufficient to formulate an opinion, based upon research, experience, honest conversations, friendships, family, and professional relationships formed with those that are different from me.
#4: I’m amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people still equate and lump homosexuality with behavior you can teach or choose (like good manners), criminal child abuse, or perverts who lack control and good judgment.
#5: I do not “genuflect at the science alter alone”. I am a Christian (Catholic) and believe God gave me a brain … to use. I am on my own (personal and private) path to salvation. While I do not subscribe to snake healing, the infallibility of the Pope, literal translation of the bible as the word of God, or believe dancing and drinking alcohol is a sin, I respect others right to believe in such. I do not, however, support personal and private religious beliefs dictating public policy or serving as conduit to deprive any human being of equal rights or opportunities.
#6 Unfortunately, our Republican Party remains controlled and influenced by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s version of fundamentalist Christianity, which excludes homosexuals and is, in my opinion, a huge political mistake. On this issue, Glenn Nye is much more representative of my point of view and Scott Rigell’s actions and beliefs are unacceptable. Nice to know he’ll sell anyone a car, but gays are NOT welcome in his church!
#7 Most of the above is irrelevant to the issue. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if you or I accept or embrace homosexuality as “just like us”. What matters is that all citizens have equal access to basic human rights and protections under our law. Excluding one group from serving, because of ‘lifestyle choice’ or ‘inherent trait’ is unconstitutional, and as Rigell is fond of saying, “just plain wrong”. I’m perfectly fine with bouncing any military service member for ‘conduct unbecoming’. However I have a problem with bouncing a military service member simply for ‘being gay’.
LD – I have read your posts since December ’09 and generally find you to be informed, tolerant, and open to alternative points of view, rather than dogmatic. And, for the record, my earlier comments were made primarily in response to Dick Roten’s posts, which I find offensive and, unfortunately, representative of the Republican Party’s ‘official’ stance on homosexuality.
Jay D,
I support the end of DADT. My objection is that gay activists are only looking at possible success on this issue as wetting the appetites of their community. They look at the end of DADT as only a stepping stone towards further progress.
I support tolerance, I do not support encouragement.
I also object strongly to some of your beliefs as represented by your statement:
“I’m amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people still equate and lump homosexuality with behavior you can teach or choose (like good manners)…”
I guess I am a bisexual who chose to settle down in a stable heterosexual marriage. If I had been taught it was OK to be Gay, I might now have a husband instead of wife. I am pretty sure the man I am thinking of would have said yes if I had asked him. No, we never engaged in sex, but our friendship was so tight rumors were spreading that we were.
This thread was hijacked about sexual preference as related to our greater society, not the military. I hope that lots of people are taking lots of notes and tracking lots of numbers as the military wades into this swamp to see how it affects morale and force structures in the coming weeks, months and years. How are the numbers going to be tracked… an increase or decrease of hetero attacks and homicides on openly gay service members or vice-versa?… suicides?… the casualty rate of front line troops?… the numbers of openly gay members who make it out of basic training?… the recruiting and retention rates?… Will the military recognize spousal benefits for those openly gay members who are legally “married” in certain states? Are uniforms going to be changed so openly gay members can more directly “express” their individuality? Are separate berthing areas going to be required for openly gay service members… male, female, gay male, gay female?
There are lots of questions, and a “study” was forthcoming in December, but the Judge has made the “study”, current law and Congress irrelevant. Finally… I wonder how the lyrics of the service hymns are going to change to reflect this new era of tolerance and sensitivity?
Tim J,
I think your concerns are easily parried by pointing to the doom and gloom predicted if the military was integrated. It was not easy for the military to become racially integrated, but it got done.
Whether you like it or not, our greater society is headed towards greater tolerance of homosexuality. The military is going to be forced to follow society’s dictates because that is how our nation works.
I support your concerns about how the marriage issue will impact military service. I think on that issue we need to wait and hear what the Supreme Court has to say on this issue. I am confident that then the military will salute and carry on.
America, you have got to love it! And if you do not love it you can always leave.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.