Forums | MacLife

The argument that always gets leveled against the Executive unilaterally doing anything on this issue is that it would take an act of Congress to alter the law and therefore the President is bound to enforce it.

The fallacy behind this is that the President has plenary power as Commander in Chief over the military.  Just like Congress could not pass a resolution ordering the President to commit troops somewhere against his/her disagreement, neither could Congress (and no federal court would even touch this issue) prevent the President from refusing to discharge an individual.

Thus, if President Obama with a "stroke of the pen" ordered the military to stop discharging homosexuals would he technically be in defiance of federal law?  Perhaps, but it is a federal law that has absolutely NO hope of being enforced by the federal courts.

I'm sure they'll all be lining up to take credit whenever it finally happens, of course.

There was a nice lady on NPR the other day from that 'military readiness' special interest group.  She said that you don't go and change policy as a "party favor" or simply because someone "has a parade."




Pretty smurfing classy...

bratboy wrote:

There was a nice lady on NPR the other day from that 'military readiness' special interest group.  She said that you don't go and change policy as a "party favor" or simply because someone "has a parade."




Pretty smurfing classy...

I'm happy to see that she has such a solid grip on the issue.

user wrote:

Couldn't they, like, stop discharging people for being gay? I doubt Obama would object to that.

(although, yes, that's not any better than DADT)

How is not discharging people for being gay "not any better" than discharging them for it? I thought that was goal #1?

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Gates sez Pentagon looking into how much leeway the military has under existing policy, which he calls "very restrictive"

"We're talking about how do we move forward on this, achieve this objective which is changing the policy."

Gates added: "What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."

The defense secretary said one possible modification might be consider the circumstances under which a service member is "outed" in determining whether or not he or she must leave the military.

Gates offered as an example "when we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.

"If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he said.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

It's pathetic that the goddamned military is apparently more active on this issue than Obama.

The military, unlike Obama, is a direct stakeholder - so certainly they are interested in the situation. Frankly, the fact that such questions even come up is an indicator of how moronic the current situation is.

Either ban gays, or allow them. The current situation is a ridiculous farce.

I would say that the Commander in Chief of the military has a direct stake in the military.

KHannon wrote:

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Gates sez Pentagon looking into how much leeway the military has under existing policy, which he calls "very restrictive"


It's pathetic that the goddamned military is apparently more active on this issue than Obama.

The military, unlike Obama, is a direct stakeholder - so certainly they are interested in the situation. Frankly, the fact that such questions even come up is an indicator of how moronic the current situation is.

Either ban gays, or allow them. The current situation is a ridiculous farce.

I would say that the Commander in Chief of the military has a direct stake in the military.

Sure, he's the CIC, but he's neither gay, nor military. His role is at the very top - directing where the military goes, and what the ultimate goals are. It's quite possible for him to not really give a damn about how the goals are accomplished - within reason. The whole gay thing really should have been an internal military issue, yet somehow it turned into a political football.

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

Sure, he's the CIC, but he's neither gay, nor military. His role is at the very top - directing where the military goes, and what the ultimate goals are. It's quite possible for him to not really give a damn about how the goals are accomplished - within reason. The whole gay thing really should have been an internal military issue, yet somehow it turned into a political football.

"The military" isn't the fourth branch of government...

Does the CEO of a company really care if you use a black, or a blue, pen to fill out paperwork?

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

Does the CEO of a company really care if you use a black, or a blue, pen to fill out paperwork?

Are you equating equal rights to choice of ink?

Only in the sense that this is something that should be an internal HR matter in the military - not something that should necessarily rise to the level of president. Until such time as it becomes a matter of national security, it seems that the Pentagon should be allowed to deal with the issue.

If anything, I feel that DADT should be done away with, and the responsibility for determining proper conduct returned to the military.

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

Only in the sense that this is something that should be an internal HR matter in the military - not something that should necessarily rise to the level of president.

I've gotta admit, I don't view discrimination to be some sort of simple administrative matter that should be left to the discretion of a government agency. 

Until such time as it becomes a matter of national security, it seems that the Pentagon should be allowed to deal with the issue.

So I only deserve equal rights when discrimination becomes a matter of "national security?!"

If anything, I feel that DADT should be done away with, and the responsibility for determining proper conduct returned to the military.

DADT is not limited to "conduct," not that that would make it any better.

The military has long had its own code of conduct, and justice system. It does so, because it's mission is unique, and of vital importance. Keep in mind, you give up certain rights when you join the military voluntarily. If you don't wish to be subjected to the loss of those rights, don't join. Certain rights that we take for granted are explicitly not extended to active-duty military.

That said, I believe the military should allow openly gay servicemen to serve. I don't see how that would negatively impact force readiness, morale, or national security. Much like the previous pushes to allow minorities and women to serve have actually strengthened to military, I believe that lifting this prohibition would also do no harm, and potentially bring benefits. However, if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that allowing openly homosexual people to serve was detrimental to the military's mission, I would reconsider that opinion.

The defense of the nation is ultimately what allows us to enjoy our rights and freedoms. We already abridge the rights of those who serve in order to protect that defense, and this issue potentially falls under that category.

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

The military has long had its own code of conduct, and justice system. It does so, because it's mission is unique, and of vital importance.

DADT is not limited to conduct.

Did the military voluntarily accept blacks or women?  Should they have the discretion to limit membership to certain religious or political beliefs?

No, they didn't. However, even after the military was forced to allow them, those groups had to prove their worth - and they did. If they hadn't, it's likely the culture wouldn't have changed, and the law would have become toothless. From what I understand, soldiers who didn't agree with these rules made life tough on new minority and female recruits; and yet they persevered and became accepted.

As I stated, so long as it doesn't negatively impact their mission, they should be given latitude. Racism has no place in the military, and only serves to weaken it. Sexism was a bit tougher, but I believe women  have proved their value in the service as well. Each of these groups brought something different to the table that ultimately strengthened our nations defense. I believe homosexual Americans should be given the chance as well - particularly since so many have already served with distinction (silently) already.

In most areas, I am a champion of civil rights and equal treatment for all. The military, however; is a different matter; and I tend to offer deference until evidence to the contrary is offered.

They had to prove their worth? What the hell are you talking about?

In the Canadian military, which began allowing gays to serve openly almost 20 years ago, studies show no negative impact on performance.

The way I see it, anyone who tries to play the "performance" card is a retard or homophobe.