RSS Feed Menu
The Portland Press Herald reports:
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe said Wednesday she would support the repeal of the military policy that prevents gays from serving openly.
The announcement came as the U.S. House of Representatives voted on repealing the policy, known as ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’
“After careful analysis of the comprehensive report compiled by the Department of Defense and thorough consideration of the testimony provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs, I support repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law,” Snowe said in a statement.
Good for her. DADT is unconstitutional on its face.
This can happen this year.
Another wedge issue that hopefully will disappear soon. McCain is a disgrace on this as much else lately, thank God he is not President.
valkayec said “DADT is unconstitutional on its face.”
Ridiculous. There’s no text to support such a claim. And no author or ratifier of the Constitution or any amendment had the remotest intention of mandating the “gay rights” agenda against the will of the elected branches, and certainly not imposing it on the military.
“valkayec said ‘DADT is unconstitutional on its face.’ Ridiculous. There’s no text to support such a claim.”
It patently violates the Constitution’s promise that all people will be treated equally before the law. But activist conservative judges take that and personally amend the Constitution by ruling “except …. etc etc etc”.
If DODT applied to Christians or Jewish people rather than gay people, would you declare the Constitution does not “mandate Christian or Jewish rights … and certainly not imposing it on the military” ? Pro-DODT is pure bigotry. Our nation is better than that. Most soldiers and most of the American public want gay integration in the military to happen.
Equality prevents tyranny.
It patently violates the Constitution’s promise of equal rights before the law. Only activist conservative judges can take that and declare, “except …. etc etc etc”.
Amen to that Nanotek. I would have no problem with DADT if it mandated it for everyone, that is no one talks about their sexual orientation or life ever, but that notion is freaking insane so there is zero equal rights before the law. Now as to whether Homosexuality should be allowed at all, that is Do Ask and Do Tell and not allow gays to enter, that is likely legal (inherent conditions are disqualifiers, you don’t see blind soldiers for example) but as to respect to gays it is not wise or needed. The Republicans simply lack the balls to take a stand against not allowing any gays enter ever because even they know its stupidity as a policy so they settle for this half measure. Well, to hell with that.
“don’t tell.” This was an effort, by statute, to repeal the constitutional right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The framers obviously meant any grievance whatsoever. Some folks need to brush up on their legal reasoning. If the Senate doesn’t repeal the statute, the courts will. The question of original intent is not involved.
Thanks, Nanotek, for putting to Carney the same question I would have. His religious fervor blinds him to the fact that Christian rights are no more explicitly engraved in the constitution than those of gays and lesbians, but he’d never think of referring to Christians “imposing” their “agenda” on the country. Those scary words are reserved exclusively for any minorities he finds personally repellent.
Guys . . . give up. Carney will never concede.
He is very sure “faggot” does not appear in the Constitution . . . therefore any laws about gays cannot violate the constitution. Period. Of course he is wrong. Even he knows he is wrong. But like any good Conservative, he’s made a nonsensical declaration and would rather gow down with the nonsensical ship as a martyr than concede he either doesn’t understand the basics of constitutional law or that his personal offense at the concept of gay-ness is blinding his judgement
He’ll never, ever, EVER admit it.
“If DODT applied to Christians or Jewish people rather than gay people, would you declare the Constitution does not “mandate Christian or Jewish rights … and certainly not imposing it on the military” ? Pro-DODT is pure bigotry.”
I hesitate to wade into this highly emotional topic, but this is just not correct. The judgment behind the current law has been that homosexual behavior was incompatible with military service because it was disruptive to good order and discipline. This has nothing to do about self-identification as a homosexual, feelings of same sex attraction, whatever.
The rationale was similar to the one prohibiting women in ground combat. Unit members (pardon the pun) must be able to trust one another with their lives, and the mistrust that comes from wondering if my buddy is literally trying to screw me or get me to screw him is antithetic to the trust needed, to potential for favoritism, when assuming or assigning highly risky missions, etc.
DADT was a compromise allowing homosexuals to serve. It prohibits homosexual behavior and treats the self-identification of homosexuality as admission of homosexual behavior; ergo, you’re out. There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about it. Maybe one day we’ll figure out how to automate an airplane so it can be flown by a blind man, but right now, it’s a disqualifier. The job requires sight. At least when DADT was passed, the judgment was that the level of trust needed in the military disqualified homosexual behavior.
There is nothing inherent in Christian or Jewish beliefs, i.e., beliefs that translate into behavior, that is incompatible with military service or good order and discipline, so the analogy is off the mark. On the other hand, a pacifist, Christian or otherwise, could be either not allowed to enlist or assigned to other duties (e.g., medic), but it would (and should) depend on the requirements of the military, not someone’s perception of social justice.
Whether DADT should be overturned now is a different question, but should be argued for or against the merit of the original argument. Obviously, the social makeup of the military has changed, acceptance may be much more widespread, etc. But to say “You’re a bigot and you’re interfering with my “right to serve” (really?) doesn’t address the root question.