Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[The Annoyed Man]

ive been resisting to post on this topic but here it goes.

most of the people who has issues living or working with gay men isnt even someone a gay man would want to be with anyway.

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

There is something you need to understand, before you paint with a broad brush. My wife is all woman. She doesn't "trust gay men more than straight men." That is a bunk statement. It may be true for some women, but I don't think you can rationally claim that it is true for most women.

[Cobra Medic]

I like icecream on apple pie, but I don't think that's relevant to the original subject.

[Hoi Polloi]

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

That's an odd assertion. What did you base it on?

Edit: Cobra Medic is correct. It has no bearing on the topic at hand. Nevermind.

I want to thank bdickens for illustrating my point so well above. I can't figure out multi-quote, so please forgive me. He showed how there is a period where everyone is expected to act uniformly and there is a period when one's personal life is treated on a don't ask, don't tell basis--and all soldiers are treated this way, meaning homosexuals are not being treated any differently under the current rules, but by creating a protected class, they will be.

[b322da]

threoh8,

Yours is a rational mature statement of personal observations as a commander which is the sort of testimony the government is probably working very hard on getting for when Maj. Witt's trial reopens. Personal observations like yours are certainly not what I called "imaginary horribles" above.

I strongly suspect, however, that Maj. Witt's attorney will argue that under the law as already laid down by the 9th Circuit your testimony would be inadmissible, since, I assume, you did not observe her effect on her unit. The 9th Circuit appears to have decided that authorities have to get up close and personal. That is, it is not right for a service, or a judge, to assume that since gay Private Jones adversely affected the morale, cohesiveness and discipline of his unit, that gay Seaman Smith would similarly affect his unit, without looking at the facts of Seaman Smith's case. The government would of course most likely resist such a ruling by the district judge. That is how lawyers make a living.

I never made it clear that I have no strong personal views on this question, but I am just trying to clarify what I think the real issue is.

BTW, thank you for your service, too.

[b322da]

Well howdy there, Hoi Polloi. I have been anxiously awaiting hearing your take on this, entering into this chatter by a bunch of men. My reaction to all your posts, whether or not I agree with them, has been without exception that they are intelligent, well-spoken, and merit close attention. I wish I could spell as well as you do.

Elmo

[G26ster]

threoh8,

Yours is a rational mature statement of personal observations as a commander which is the sort of testimony the government is probably working very hard on getting for when Maj. Witt's trial reopens. Personal observations like yours are certainly not what I called "imaginary horribles" above.

I strongly suspect, however, that Maj. Witt's attorney will argue that under the law as already laid down by the 9th Circuit your testimony would be inadmissible, since, I assume, you did not observe her effect on her unit. The 9th Circuit appears to have decided that authorities have to get up close and personal. That is, it is not right for a service, or a judge, to assume that since gay Private Jones adversely affected the morale, cohesiveness and discipline of his unit, that gay Seaman Smith would similarly affect his unit, without looking at the facts of Seaman Smith's case. The government would of course most likely resist such a ruling by the district judge. That is how lawyers make a living.

I never made it clear that I have no strong personal views on this question, but I am just trying to clarify what I think the real issue is.

BTW, thank you for your service, too.

Did the 9th Circuit deem the regulation "unconstitutional" making it an "unlawful order?" Do I have 100% constitutional rights in the military? Is my complete freedom of speech and freedom of assembly intact? Commanding troops in combat requires a level of discipline and obedience not seen in the civilian world. In the civilian world, your boss cannot hand you a weapon and order you to defend the facility from an attacking mob. If they did, and you refuse, is there a legal penalty? In the military, he/she can, and the penalty for failure to do so is severe. That is why we have a UCMJ, and military personnel are held to those codes, and not civil law.

[alvins]

ive been resisting to post on this topic but here it goes.

most of the people who has issues living or working with gay men isnt even someone a gay man would want to be with anyway.

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

There is something you need to understand, before you paint with a broad brush. My wife is all woman. She doesn't "trust gay men more than straight men." That is a bunk statement. It may be true for some women, but I don't think you can rationally claim that it is true for most women.

I guess you didnt see the word MOST in their buddy.
I can claim it as i have experience. thanks
besides, what your wife thinks is not how all people think, thank god.

[Hoi Polloi]

ive been resisting to post on this topic but here it goes.

most of the people who has issues living or working with gay men isnt even someone a gay man would want to be with anyway.

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

There is something you need to understand, before you paint with a broad brush. My wife is all woman. She doesn't "trust gay men more than straight men." That is a bunk statement. It may be true for some women, but I don't think you can rationally claim that it is true for most women.

I guess you didnt see the word MOST in their buddy.
I can claim it as i have experience. thanks

I somehow doubt that you have personal experience with most women, much less on the topic of whom they trust. But let's take your statement at face value. If you have anecdotal experience with most women, does your experience stand up to scrutiny? No, it cannot. It is filtered through your personal biases which, like all other people, will be subject to overwhelming corruption when selecting what you will remember, how you will remember it, and how you will recall it at a later time. Here is one list of such biases at work.

So now the best we can boil it down to is a statement from one internet account of, "It is my experience that the women I know tell me that they trust open and active homosexuals more than they trust heterosexual men." Then someone else can say, "It is my experience that the women I know tell me that they trust their husbands, fathers, brothers, etc who are heterosexual more than they trust active and open homosexuals." Then we have a stale mate that won't be broken unless some social scientist undertakes a comprehensive study and submits it to peer-reviewed journals and the scientific community takes on the topic. But as that isn't likely to happen, let's stick to what we can discuss, which is the topic of this thread: the military's don't ask, don't tell policy and the court case concerning it. IIRC (and I might not be), the particular topic at hand in that case is whether it is an unconstitutional policy. Someone please correct or elaborate on that for me if necessary.

[threoh8]

That is how lawyers make a living.

Yeah. That's part of the problem.

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this issue, but I do have what I consider to be an informed opinion. Good, intelligent people can disagree.

I know diddly about the particulars of this case. But the outcome of this case will have an impact on policy. My children and grandchildren may have to defend this country through service in the military, and I want them to have the best organization and support we can give them. I would prefer that this sort of policy be set by the military, not a judge, lawyer, or bureaucrat. Yes, there will be certain politicians involved in the decisions about the military, but that's the Constitution I swore to defend. Again, I don't see a right to serve.

Policy made - or changed - based on one individual case is likely to be a problem.

Military necessity does allow curtailment of many rights and freedoms for servicemembers, things enjoyed or taken for granted by civilians: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and apparently RKBA in many situations. The implied freedoms of movement, association, privacy, assembly, et cetera are often restricted. I missed those while on active duty, and try to use them responsibly now that I'm retired.

[Hoi Polloi]

Well howdy there, Hoi Polloi. I have been anxiously awaiting hearing your take on this, entering into this chatter by a bunch of men. My reaction to all your posts, whether or not I agree with them, has been without exception that they are intelligent, well-spoken, and merit close attention. I wish I could spell as well as you do.

Elmo

Thank you for the undeserved praise. I would look much closer to the fool I am if not for Firefox's spell checker which underlines lots of my words in red for me.

[The Annoyed Man]

ive been resisting to post on this topic but here it goes.

most of the people who has issues living or working with gay men isnt even someone a gay man would want to be with anyway.

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

There is something you need to understand, before you paint with a broad brush. My wife is all woman. She doesn't "trust gay men more than straight men." That is a bunk statement. It may be true for some women, but I don't think you can rationally claim that it is true for most women.

I guess you didnt see the word MOST in their buddy.
I can claim it as i have experience. thanks
besides, what your wife thinks is not how all people think, thank god.

Of course I saw the word "Most." What about my reply makes you think I didn't? I was responding specifically to that word, and if you didn't see that, then you didn't really read my post now, did you? And actually, my wife is quite normal, thank you very much. My point was that she does not draw a distinction on whom to trust or not trust based on whether or not the other person is gay. There are far more important criteria than that on which one should base trust. Such a person who would base their judgement on the criteria of the other party's sexual preferences alone would be a shallow, empty headed fool. So if that is your parameter, then yes, I thank God that my wife does not represent your "normal."

And the proper spelling is "there," not "their;" and I'm not your buddy.

[bdickens]

Having commanded a mixed male/female unit in a combat zone, I disagree. It's normal for men to form friendships, rivalries, etc, as it is for women. On the individual and small unit level, when romantic or sexual behavior is involved, the emotions are magnified, jealousies are worse, and breakups are even worse. Deployments complicate everything. I've seen what can happen with heterosexual relationships.

My experience was quite different.

Open homosexual relationships under those circumstances will further complicate the job of maintaining discipline, trust, and cohesion.

And you know this because...? Or does your prejudice cause you to make unfounded assertions.

[b322da]

I would prefer that this sort of policy be set by the military, not a judge, lawyer, or bureaucrat.

I have not been talking about "policy." I have been talking about a constitutional question. No matter who in the system makes the "policy," our Constitution trumps -- the Constitution you swore, and I swore (several times) to defend.

I must say that I, personally, do not want constitutional issues decided by military brass, or even their civilian seniors. More than 200 years ago a group of very wise men decided in Philadelphia that the ultimate decision on such issues will be by our judiciary, contrary to their recent experience under a totalitarian government, and after many, if not most, of them, just fought in one of our nation's most horrible wars.

No problem. I think we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree. We are certainly not alone in that.

[nitrogen]

Thank you TAM.

nitrogen, I am guess that you are friends with your roommate and not strangers right?

Why should I, someone that meets the military standards have to suffer and be uncofortable because we want to change the standards so that we can accommodate and make somebody else feel better? If gays want to serve in the military do it quietly and comply with the standard.

We are, yes.

Let me turn your question around:

Why should the military get rid of someone skilled because someone else feels sketchy about them? I guess I just happen to disagree with who is in the "right" here, is all.

I liken it to integration of the military in 1948. Plenty of the same arguments were made then.

[psijac]

ive been resisting to post on this topic but here it goes.

most of the people who has issues living or working with gay men isnt even someone a gay man would want to be with anyway.

Accually most women trust gay men more then a straight man.

Anytime a man says "most women think/feel/______..." the next few words out of his mouth will be wrong.

No man can know what any one women is thinking let alone "most" of them

Also I think you are confusing "trust" with "not threatened by" and there are many types of trusts

I can trust some people with secrets. Of the other things that need trust are life, money, and heart.

Would a women trust a a straight banker or a gay banker. The answer is it shouldn't matter but your previous statement says she should always go for the gay banker since she "trusts" him more. Is a gay surgeon preferable to a straight one? Is a women with a gay husband less likely to cheat on her with another women? Okay bad example