Law Enforcement Specialties >> All Other Types of Law Enforcement >> Federal judge refuses to allow U.S. military to reinstate ban under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

-1

Federal judge refuses to allow U.S. military to reinstate ban under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

676 Views
16 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Photo_user_banned_big

-1 posts

back to top

Posted almost 4 years ago

 

In a highly significant move - the Defense Department, anticipating an unfavorable ruling this week, has instructed its recruiters for the first time to start accepting applications from enlistees who acknowledge that they are gay.


The issue of "homosexuals" serving in the military (like the issue of so-called "gay marriage) is not about "who" but "what." Speaking as a career Law Enforcement Officer, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), at last check, still defines sexual misconduct as "penetration however slight," among other characteristics. The military with good reason embraces upright "moral" conduct. Without it, not only does "good order and discipline" founder but the likelihood of "war crimes" increases throughout the entire spectrum of warfare specialties. To accept a practicing homosexual grants permission for every kind of immoral sexual conduct. How else then would a heterosexual military person be prosecuted for adultery with another serviceman's spouse when their argument in defense would be 'to permit the one is to permit the other?' The military, across the board, loses all redress to a moral defense for any action of theirs that may be called into question, accepting, as is being forced upon it, the 'no-go' starting position of the indisputable immorality of homosexual conduct. The military must have moral authority. It cannot have it by turning a blind eye to the cancer of homosexual immorality that will eat away at it if it is forced to accept it. It is not a matter of the "who" of the homosexual, it is a matter of the "what" of the immorality of homosexual conduct.

Terry00007_max50

81 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

I agree. Having been an MP in the Army, I have studied the Manual for Court Martial (MCM) and understand why article 125 of the UCMJ was put into place prohibiting "sodomy" by Military Personnel. If there was NOT a NEED for prohibiting homesexual activities in a military environment, art 125 would NOT have been included in the punitive articles of the UCMJ. For many years (dating way back to the Revolutionary War) gay personnel in positions of authority, have used that position of authority over their troops, to influence the person(s) of their interest, to giving them sexual gratification in exchange for not ruining that servicemember's military career. To put it plainly, gay officers would force themselves on their personnel by threatening military punishment on lower ranking personnel that they may have wanted to have gay sexual activity with. If the person refused... they would be brought up on bogus charges by that officer... tried and sentenced by that officer. This of course made some enlisted personnel submit because the punishment for the crime they were accused of would have been death. Shortly after the formation of a permanent Military Police Corps in 1949, they finalized the MCM in 1951. This MCM included art 125 to prohibit "sodomy" being conducted by military personnel. Sodomy was broadly defined as "any deviate sexual act" to protect subordinate personnel from being forced into any sexual act deviating from normal male female sex to include "oral sex".


In 1985, I was called to respond to an assult on an officer by an NCO. After taking to NCO into custody and investigating the allegations that the NCO was sexually harrased by his section leader, we found that the Provost Marshall's Office had enough just cause to prefer charges against the officer for a violation of art 125 UCMJ in that the officer did in fact sexually harrass several members of his command by placing his hands on the personnel in an inappropriate place and did in fact fondle said personnel. In that the said officer aslo on 2 occasions, did in fact force personnel to allow him to perform oral sex on them by threatening transfer to less desirable duty.


In this case, art 125 UCMJ served it's intended purpose, and saved many straight personnel from being taken advantage of by a higher ranking homosexual officer or NCO.


I am totally against homosexuals serving openly in the military. I am more than sure that homosexuals serving openly in the military will only remind us of why they were banned from the military in the first place, and why there had to be an article of the UCMJ put into place to protect military personnel from the ones that were hiding.

Photo_user_banned_big

681 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

So do I. By the way I rated this thread down for the decision of this Federal Judge. So glad I did my service before all this crap.


"We are all ignorant, but we do not ignore the same things"
Albert Einstein, about the Copenhagen Interpretation.
“It has to be right, because it works so well. As per the nature of it, I make no hypothesis”
Sir Isaac Newton, regarding the Laws of Motion.

Terry00007_max50

81 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

BrooklynHillsCop says ...



So do I. By the way I rated this thread down for the decision of this Federal Judge. So glad I did my service before all this crap.



You and me both!!!

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

BrooklynHillsCop says ...



So do I. By the way I rated this thread down for the decision of this Federal Judge. So glad I did my service before all this crap.



Ive not liked the direction the U.S. Military has been going for a while. I love my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coasties...but I absolutely detest the civilian politicians that are running it. I mean I really DETEST them. They are sacrificing the ability to decisively win wars in order to be more politically correct and I feel and THINK that the current trends are a VERY REAL threat to national security...

Profile1_max50

118 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

I really think that there is no problem letting the LGB community actively serve in the military. The bottom line is that we are all our brother's keepers. Does it matter if one of your brothers are gay? No. If they are willing to fight for their country and potentially save your bigot a**, then I think you may appreciate them a little more. And besides, what's wrong with gay people? Let me guess: you don't want to seen them 'doing their thing' in public or hitting on you. Frankly, I don't want to see straight people 'doing their thing' in public. That is private. Yes, they may hit on you, and yes that may be uncomfortable, but what about that girl/guy in high school that hit on you (or maybe you were that girl/guy)? What makes that any different? I really hate to see biggotry in LE and the military. When it comes down to it, we are all blue or ACU anyway (sorry non-army guys, you know what I mean...).


"Any sudden hand movements will render your birth certificate a useless piece of scrap paper."

Photo_user_banned_big

681 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Anonymous says ...



BrooklynHillsCop says ...



So do I. By the way I rated this thread down for the decision of this Federal Judge. So glad I did my service before all this crap.



Ive not liked the direction the U.S. Military has been going for a while. I love my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coasties...but I absolutely detest the civilian politicians that are running it. I mean I really DETEST them. They are sacrificing the ability to decisively win wars in order to be more politically correct and I feel and THINK that the current trends are a VERY REAL threat to national security...



Gotta BUMP this "Anonymous"... Off course, he is no "anonymous" to me.


Well said brother...!!!      Watch your six out there.


"We are all ignorant, but we do not ignore the same things"
Albert Einstein, about the Copenhagen Interpretation.
“It has to be right, because it works so well. As per the nature of it, I make no hypothesis”
Sir Isaac Newton, regarding the Laws of Motion.

Silver_warrior_max50

1464 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

PCSO_Explorer says ...



I really think that there is no problem letting the LGB community actively serve in the military. The bottom line is that we are all our brother's keepers. Does it matter if one of your brothers are gay? No. If they are willing to fight for their country and potentially save your bigot a**, then I think you may appreciate them a little more. And besides, what's wrong with gay people? Let me guess: you don't want to seen them 'doing their thing' in public or hitting on you. Frankly, I don't want to see straight people 'doing their thing' in public. That is private. Yes, they may hit on you, and yes that may be uncomfortable, but what about that girl/guy in high school that hit on you (or maybe you were that girl/guy)? What makes that any different? I really hate to see biggotry in LE and the military. When it comes down to it, we are all blue or ACU anyway (sorry non-army guys, you know what I mean...).



Pretty strong words for someone that has never put their life on the line.  This is one of those subjects that if you've never been there, you DON'T have any room to talk.  I've looked around for your introduction and any information on you to find out just exactly what makes you an expert on this subject and I find nothing, interesting.


As for your example of gays versus straight. . . . .I have worked in law enforcement for the last 16 years and have dealt with all kinds of people.  In fact, for most of my life I have worked in public service somehow. . .someway and have found very few straight public displays of affection other than the occassional kiss or hug.  Quite the contrary with gays and lesbians. . .  .they are the ones that are hanging out in public restrooms, hitting on anyone that will "get it on" with them in same restroom.  They are the ones that demand parades for their cause.  They also demand everyone accept their way of lifestyle compared to straight people that don't go around bragging to everyone (except their friends) who they banged the night before.  You are correct in saying that it should be a private matter between partners.  As for the military. . . . .if they are going to force people to accept gays working along side of them, then why don't we just pull the men/women signs off of the bathroom doors and the walls down from the stalls because that is what you are demanding people put up with.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

Profile1_max50

118 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

msp1672 says ...



PCSO_Explorer says ...



I really think that there is no problem letting the LGB community actively serve in the military. The bottom line is that we are all our brother's keepers. Does it matter if one of your brothers are gay? No. If they are willing to fight for their country and potentially save your bigot a**, then I think you may appreciate them a little more. And besides, what's wrong with gay people? Let me guess: you don't want to seen them 'doing their thing' in public or hitting on you. Frankly, I don't want to see straight people 'doing their thing' in public. That is private. Yes, they may hit on you, and yes that may be uncomfortable, but what about that girl/guy in high school that hit on you (or maybe you were that girl/guy)? What makes that any different? I really hate to see biggotry in LE and the military. When it comes down to it, we are all blue or ACU anyway (sorry non-army guys, you know what I mean...).



Pretty strong words for someone that has never put their life on the line.  This is one of those subjects that if you've never been there, you DON'T have any room to talk.  I've looked around for your introduction and any information on you to find out just exactly what makes you an expert on this subject and I find nothing, interesting.


As for your example of gays versus straight. . . . .I have worked in law enforcement for the last 16 years and have dealt with all kinds of people.  In fact, for most of my life I have worked in public service somehow. . .someway and have found very few straight public displays of affection other than the occassional kiss or hug.  Quite the contrary with gays and lesbians. . .  .they are the ones that are hanging out in public restrooms, hitting on anyone that will "get it on" with them in same restroom.  They are the ones that demand parades for their cause.  They also demand everyone accept their way of lifestyle compared to straight people that don't go around bragging to everyone (except their friends) who they banged the night before.  You are correct in saying that it should be a private matter between partners.  As for the military. . . . .if they are going to force people to accept gays working along side of them, then why don't we just pull the men/women signs off of the bathroom doors and the walls down from the stalls because that is what you are demanding people put up with.



Thank you for your opinion. I just stated mine, and did not mean to offend anyone or 'ruffle anyone's feathers'. I apologise if I did.


"Any sudden hand movements will render your birth certificate a useless piece of scrap paper."

Silver_warrior_max50

1464 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

You may wish to consider the "tone" of your "opinion" as you write it. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, when you are "upset" enough to call someone that you don't even know a bigotted arse, you may wish to reconsider the wisdom of posting at that very moment.  OR, do what I do, write out the opinion with feelings, but don't send it.  Then, go over it and figure out how to say what it is you wish to say in a way that would be more thoughtful than personal.  Tact is not the same as political correctness.  Tact is the means of telling someone to go to hell and them looking forward to the trip


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

O_s_max50

860 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Personally, I'm going to fall in line with  PCSO_Explorers basis of opinion on this one. No I don't like seeing straight or gay people making out or anything else in public. No I do not like being hit on by a gay person. Does it mean I have a problem with them being gay. No. Does it mean I think they shouldn't be able to say it on an application, No. Would I respect them any less for being willing to serve and protect this country whether in the military or on our streets, no.


For those who believe a gay person in a higher position will threaten punishment if they don't get what they want, please don't get all puffy, a straight person will do the exact same thing if they desire. Want proof, go look in the business world with females who are trying to get promoted and the males above them. Am I saying business and military are the same, no chance in hell. But, the ability and willingness to do such a thing is not defined by gay or straight, all humans can do exactly the same thing.


If someone is going to keep me alive i don't care if they're white, black, yellow, purple, female, male, gay, straight, jewish, buddist, catholic, italian, irish, german or any other type of division you can find to split our society. Every time a barrier has be presented along these lines, i.e., rights for blacks and females, look at which side came out and now things that weren't acceptable in the 40's and 50's are.


To give people their rights does not mean we all have to agree with their views or ideals.


"Law enforcement officers are never 'off duty.' They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is threatened. They need all the help that they can get."
- Barbara Boxer

"My heroes are those who risk their lives every day to protect our world and make it a better place - police, firefighters and members of our armed forces."
- Sidney

O_s_max50

860 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

msp1672 says ...



You may wish to consider the "tone" of your "opinion" as you write it. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, when you are "upset" enough to call someone that you don't even know a bigotted arse, you may wish to reconsider the wisdom of posting at that very moment.  OR, do what I do, write out the opinion with feelings, but don't send it.  Then, go over it and figure out how to say what it is you wish to say in a way that would be more thoughtful than personal.  Tact is not the same as political correctness.  Tact is the means of telling someone to go to hell and them looking forward to the trip



bump to you on this one sir.


"Law enforcement officers are never 'off duty.' They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is threatened. They need all the help that they can get."
- Barbara Boxer

"My heroes are those who risk their lives every day to protect our world and make it a better place - police, firefighters and members of our armed forces."
- Sidney

Vpsomourningband_max50

5246 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

msp1672 says ...



You may wish to consider the "tone" of your "opinion" as you write it. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, when you are "upset" enough to call someone that you don't even know a bigotted arse, you may wish to reconsider the wisdom of posting at that very moment.  OR, do what I do, write out the opinion with feelings, but don't send it.  Then, go over it and figure out how to say what it is you wish to say in a way that would be more thoughtful than personal.  Tact is not the same as political correctness.  Tact is the means of telling someone to go to hell and them looking forward to the trip



BUMP!


Photobucket

~I wondered why somebody didn't do something, then I realized I was somebody. ~ unknown

20552_1343137337912_1215571721_31006460_5991340_n_max50

272 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

What a can of worms.


The whole reason the policy was implemented in the first place was to protect gays from their fellow soldiers. Soldiers will assault, murder and commit other crimes against their gay counterparts. That's just the way that some soldiers are. They are trained to harm and kill and they even turn on their friends, they "like", let alone someone living a lifestyle they hate. 


That will take both the victim and the suspects out of the war effort, affecting combat readiness, while extra resources will have to respond to the crime, investigate and prosecute the crime(s). Those suspects will eventually serve time and eventually be cut loose with a dishonorable discharge. That takes from the readiness of a unit's ability to perform the war mission. Of course, others will hold a grudge and affect the unit cohesion for the remainder of the victim's career (I know it shouldn't but the incident will follow the victim to any unit). I've seen it happen.


I hope my opinion is wrong, but my service in the 90s showed that racism was still alive and well years after the integration of black and females in the military. There are more boneheads in the miltary than we would like to admit. We as LEOs know boneheads don't use self control, especially when they consume large amounts of alcohol, which shouldn't suprise anyone that is known to happen with soldiers.

041105-o-9999g-012_max50

487 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

I am ready for "Don't Ask Don't Tell" to go away just so we can stop getting lectured on it.  Gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for years, just not openly.  According to UCMJ the only type of sex you can have is missionary and all types foreplay are illegal. 


Sarge15mp  there are plenty of example of straight males sexually harrassing their subordinates.  Any of those folks could have just picked up the phone and made a complaint.  That was a weak arguement in my opinion.


I have a brother that is gay and when he wanted to enlisted before I told him he would have to conform the the military standards and chaneg his life during the time that he served.  He chose not to make that personnal sacrifice.  Now he has the opportunity to serve if he chooses and I am all for that.  We have plenty of dirtbags in the every branch of the military that will cause problems regardless of this policy change.

Photo_user_banned_big

681 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

TrafficCop28 says ...



What a can of worms.


The whole reason the policy was implemented in the first place was to protect gays from their fellow soldiers. Soldiers will assault, murder and commit other crimes against their gay counterparts. That's just the way that some soldiers are. They are trained to harm and kill and they even turn on their friends, they "like", let alone someone living a lifestyle they hate. 


That will take both the victim and the suspects out of the war effort, affecting combat readiness, while extra resources will have to respond to the crime, investigate and prosecute the crime(s). Those suspects will eventually serve time and eventually be cut loose with a dishonorable discharge. That takes from the readiness of a unit's ability to perform the war mission. Of course, others will hold a grudge and affect the unit cohesion for the remainder of the victim's career (I know it shouldn't but the incident will follow the victim to any unit). I've seen it happen.


I hope my opinion is wrong, but my service in the 90s showed that racism was still alive and well years after the integration of black and females in the military. There are more boneheads in the miltary than we would like to admit. We as LEOs know boneheads don't use self control, especially when they consume large amounts of alcohol, which shouldn't suprise anyone that is known to happen with soldiers.



Can't help but to agree... Especially with your first paragraph.... And as I said on my first post here, over a month ago:


"So glad I did my service before all this crap"


Disclaimer: Don't want to offend anyone. I am just glad it's long gone for me.


"We are all ignorant, but we do not ignore the same things"
Albert Einstein, about the Copenhagen Interpretation.
“It has to be right, because it works so well. As per the nature of it, I make no hypothesis”
Sir Isaac Newton, regarding the Laws of Motion.