world

U.S. judge: Military's ban on gays is unconstitutional

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Good. It IS unconstitutional. People shouldn't be punished or barred from wanting to fight for their own country based on orientation. It's just dumb. Gay or straight, if you're an American citizen, you should have that right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

**sexual orientation, haha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well we've been waiting a long time to get to this point. Sure this decision will be fought and then to the SCOTUS. Then the final decision will be made. Gays have a right to equality and the right to fight for their country. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There have always been homosexuals in the military as long as militaries have existed; they're just not really able to come out of the closet based on antiquated rules/laws and the irrational fear expressed by heterosexuals who are completely intolerant.

Good on the judge, though I expect a lot of people with outdated beliefs on the issue will shake and pound their fists about how homosexuality is a 'life-style choice' and 'against god' or what have you.

The desire to serve your country does not stem from sexual preference, and the military needs to change to support that fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

good!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well this is interesting. Obama will be jumping for joy if he can let the court do all the heavy lifting for him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't imagine gays actually wanting to join the US military. Gays and the military is like oil in water. Just saying...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't imagine gays actually wanting to join the US military.

Well at least you recognise the problem lies with you. Try imagining a bit harder, or even talk to gays who've served in the forces....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't imagine gays actually wanting to join the US military.

Wow, there's an intelligent comment if I ever saw one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I were gay I wouldn't want to join the US military. I'd prefer to work in a more friendly, accepting environment. The US military culture...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

^^^ There aren't many terribly friendly, accepting work environments for gays these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't relate to anybody who wants to join any military. At the end of the day, its just a job though. Who canres what a worker does on his/her private time. Being gay or not should not effect job performance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

american_bengoshi said: If I were gay I wouldn't want to join the US military. I'd prefer to work in a more friendly, accepting environment. The US military culture...

This is like saying you would refuse to be towel boy at a female model's only spa and bath because most of those models have attitude problems. The military tradition of the ancient Greeks is said to based on homosexual behavior, particularly pederasty. And both also through the Romans right on up through the drummer boys of the British during their Imperial days.

What you have said about gays and the military shows a complete ignorance of history really.

On the one hand I am glad to see DADT get the ax. On the other hand, soldiers need protections so they can keep their sexuality confidential while at the same time coming down HARD on those who discriminate. But openly gay service members is going to be a problem. Don't say I didn't warn you. DADT should stand until something meeting my conditions and more is put in place. Just ripping out the dam in one fell swoop is a BAD idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Logistically, wouldn't many kinds of problems may have to be dealt with once gays are allowed to serve openly? Will there have to be separate dorms or barracks? I know gays don't run around attacking heterosexual men, but won't housing them together (and making them shower together in basic training) cause some problems?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: "What you have said about gays and the military shows a complete ignorance of history really."

Don't forget the samurai warriors diggin' the boys who played women in Kabuki!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sensei258: "I know gays don't run around attacking heterosexual men, but won't housing them together (and making them shower together in basic training) cause some problems?"

Perhaps... but do you think those problems exist to a lesser extent with closeted homosexuals in the military? Is it just the being open part that's a problem? I agree there are going to be some problems, but my guess is it's going to be with the heterosexual troops discriminating against homosexuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alexander the Great's army was full of 'em, and they conquered the known world!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Logistically, wouldn't many kinds of problems may have to be dealt with once gays are allowed to serve openly?

That's not really the issue; the court can only look to the law in place - and it is apparently unconstitutional. We can assume the military will come up with ways to comply, sort of like the way businesses must comply with wheelchair-accessible laws. (That may be a bad comparison.) But the judge's job is solely to look at whether the statute being attacked can stand up to a constitutionality test - and apparently it doesn't. Assuming the ruling stands on appeal, it will be interesting to see how the military reacts - will it simply allow gays in without making significant changes to practical day-to-day activities? Or will it segregate homosexuals from the heterosexuals. I imagine that would be challenged as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Although I am glad that they are looking to change this and openly let gays in the military, my problem is that I don't see how freedom of speech relates to this. As many prior service and current service members can tell you once you join the military you defend the constitution but alot of it doesnt apply to you. Example for the freedom of speech part, you can't bad mouth the Commander and Chief or your chain of command openly. In the Military you can be charged twice for the same crime once in the military courts and once in the civilian courts. This is just a judge that is trying to make a political name for herself mainly becouse the Pentagon is already changing this rule and Congress is going to make it law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps... but do you think those problems exist to a lesser extent with closeted homosexuals in the military?

Smith tell me what you know about the military. I bet not quite a lot. I don't mind a guy being gay but I am totally against it if he is willing to flaunt it in my face like the "Gay Parade" bull that goes on. If the guy is like that kind then I don't think he should be in the military. Being gay doesn't make anyone less a man so frickin act like one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sensei258,

I know gays don't run around attacking heterosexual men, but won't housing them together (and making them shower together in basic training) cause some problems?

No. I served for over 13 years and I knew gays. There was never a problem, NEVER.

CrazyAmerican, I can tell by your post you never served. You talk a lot, but apparently not from experience.

Maybe some of you need to join the military and get real life experiences instead of running your mouth about things you have no idea what you're talking about. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is just a judge that is trying to make a political name for herself mainly becouse the Pentagon is already changing this rule and Congress is going to make it law.

Wow, glad to hear you know more than the judge. You must share with us your own analysis of the evidence presented at trial, the witness testimony, the various motions filed in this case, the arguments made, and of course your in depth analysis of the judge's opinion and how she got it wrong - in spite of all the precedent she cited. As your comment clearly indicates you have inside knowledge of the case and must have been present from day one - i.e., the filing of the complaint up until judgment, I think us posters would greatly benefit from your thoughts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ya know, after reading some of what this judge is arguing, I have to think, what the judge is really saying, is that the constitution, is unconstitutional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"don't ask, don't tell"

What a load of horseshit. In my military unit, an enlisted guy I worked with was recruited to entrap a gay officer. Between being charged with having sexual relations with someone of the same sex, the poor officer was also charged with fratenizing with a member of the enlisted, lol, what a waste of time and money...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The same logic DADT supporters display would bar heterosexual male soldiers from serving with their female counterparts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adds a whole new meaning to the term, "I've got your back".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sensei258: "I know gays don't run around attacking heterosexual men, but won't housing them together (and making them shower together in basic training) cause some problems?"

Do gays in society at large cause such problems?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact that this lawsuit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is a very BIG factor in this decision. I had a good friend in this group, and always asked how he could be gay AND a Republican. It seemed to be a conflict of interest to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I had a good friend in this group, and always asked how he could be gay AND a Republican. It seemed to be a conflict of interest to me.

Conservative means different things to different people. May view black republicans in the same light. If it's a question of poltical philosophy, then being gay (or a minority) is only in conflict with a certain brand of social conservativism. If it's a question of group affilition, and Republican treatment of gays (and minorities), then consider that groups like the Log Cabin Republicans are trying to change the GOP from the inside.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Many", rather than "May". Sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact that this lawsuit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is a very BIG factor in this decision. I had a good friend in this group, and always asked how he could be gay AND a Republican. It seemed to be a conflict of interest to me.

Republicans are generally made up of 2 different groups. Both conservatives. Theres the social conservatives, and the economic conservatives. Theres a lot of overlap there, with quite a few people being both. But then theres people like Bush, who is socially conservative, but very liberal fiscally. Is it really all that surprising, that a small minority of blacks vote Republican, or that there are homosexual Republicans? I know a lot of social conservative blacks. People who put their religion first. Same thing with homosexual republicans. They may not be aligned with the social conservatives, but they are fiscal conservatives. While I personally don't agree with homosexuality, when it comes down to it, I have a lot more in common with someone who is fiscally conservative, then I do with someone who is socially conservative.

I think it comes down to, what you see as being most important. Do you consider your homosexuality to be the most important thing in deciding your vote? Can you support someone who doesn't support those things, but otherwise is totally aligned with you?

This ruling though, really doesn't make a lot of sense though. Not only that, it goes contrary to a previous supreme court ruling. Not sure which way this is going to go though. Obviously his ruling will be suspended while it is appealed to the next higher court. Depending on how they rule, it could wind up before the Supreme court sometime next year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't the last SCOTUS decision say that they sided with the military thinking at the time and dropped it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream- I am so glad you think you know who has and has not served, Although you are incredibly wrong I am retired but your right 13 years makes you more the expert to know. My Most Humble Apologies omnipotent one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Excuse me CrazyAmerican for my gaff.

As many prior service and current service members can tell you once you join the military you defend the constitution but alot of it doesnt apply to you.

I disagree with that statement. Except for a for those items that pertain to discipline, I'm not sure what in the constitution didn't apply to me after I enlisted. It was more like you were forced to be disciplined and respectful and courteous or you suffered the consequences of being an ass.

my problem is that I don't see how freedom of speech relates to this.

It's more that they have the right to be gay and serve in the military. The court said that the excuses that the military has used for 200 years are bunk. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CrazyAmerican since you're retired military, what problems did you ever see with gays in the military. Or maybe you were unaware that there were gays around you.

What's your problem with it? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess you didnt read all the words I wrote. I dont have a problem with it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites