DONT ASK DONT TELL DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A federal Judge today has declared the dont ask dont tell policy of the military unconstitutional. So what do they do now.

New Uniforms!

my thoughts are if your queer & have no fear then give them a gun

Not sure what will happen next, but the barracks will be adorable!

I think most of you missed the salient point; DADT is a political policy put forward by Bill Clinton. The military had nothing, NOTHING, to do with it. So you should not ask what the military do (they follow orders) but you should ask what the left wing politicians should do now that their little thing was shot down.

A good marksman is always sure he has the right target.

Read.

"Thursday's ruling came in a case filed in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay GOP political organization. It is the first successful legal challenge to the policy since Congress enacted it in 1993."

The federal judge, Virginia A. Phillips, was nominated by Clinton in 1999. The 1993 DADT policy was a compromise. Before that gays weren't (officially) allowed in the military at all. The DADT policy allowed them to serve, just not openly.

Let's crunch the numbers. Democrats: 1993, Log Cabin Republicans: 2004, garden variety Republicans: pending. My guess is that regular Republicans are about 20 years behind Democrats. They should warm up to the idea in about 2013. (Hmmm...maybe they should call it the "gays in the military tax cuts for the wealthy"??? They'd eat that with a spoon.)

New Uniforms! Originally Posted by Kaboom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaIeDBjfPYk

Gonna happen next year anyway and they will have a study to help implement it. Gates and top brass will manage it properly. A little patience and it will be worked out.

This issue is not new. The Spartans even had their own regiment albeit separate but open. Died valantly at the Pass. It appears the Pashtuns prefer little boys(we should not be dying to protect that deal).

I am with Cheeps if you want to fight and you are good at it then have at it.

Galt did anyone ever ask you just as a matter of curiousity?

For your edification; I had two gay guys working for me (that I was aware of). One was the hardest working guy that I had. The entire work center was aware but none of us was going to say a word to anyone. This was well before DADT. The other (and this is important) was discovered when he tested HIV positive during a routine check before minor surgery. Our ship (like many ships) had something called the "walking bloodbank". Sickbay had our blood all typed and listed. If someone needed blood immediately they would start going down the list for donors. How would you feel if you survived a terrible injury only to catch a fatal disease from a shipmate. This was the time when Freddie Mercury died from AIDS. Both these guys were great but there are responsibilities that have to be met.
That is only the disease side of the debate. I also have a story about a sexual assault upon a straight sailor by a gay sailor if you care to read it.

I am up to hearing the stories.

A gay sailor beat up and assaulted a straight one? Tough guy.

I think congress already voted to end it....and they were just waiting for a study (release timed after mid-term elections) to validate what they did.

In my opinion, this has very little to do with the military, or people who want to be openly gay in the military. I couldn't imagine what hell it would be to be out of the closet in the Army.

Pre DADT, gay soldiers kept it a secret (and they lied when 'asked' upon enlistment). Problems came up when somebody saw them off duty in public, holding hands with another guy or something like that....and they were usually discharged.

Post DADT, the only change was gay soldiers didn't have to lie, upon enlistment...since nobody could 'ask'. But, if discovered to be gay, they were usually discharged.

After DADT goes away, gay soldiers still won't have to lie upon enlistment; and, if they want, they can be Loud and Proud. I don't think that will happen though. Think about it....group shower facilities, tic checks, sleeping on top of each other in vehicles...not the best time to let your buddy know you're gay.

So, gay soldiers will still stay in the shadows. But at least they won't get kicked out, if outed, right? I've seen the aftermath of a few outings. If a gay soldier is outed, he will want to leave the Army. He will be shunned, mocked, and maybe hurt. He'll probably be PCS'd, which means moved to another duty station, hopefully on some other part of the globe...but in this electronic era, his outing will always haunt him...and he'll probably get out at his earliest opportunity.

So what is the repeal of DADT about? Its part of the gay rights agenda, and its one more step towards normalizing homosexuality in our society, very symbolic...but I don't think the disruption this effort has caused the military is justified by the incredibly small number of gays who want to serve openly in the military. After this is formalized, the media will search out a story about gay soldiers serving openly. I predict they will find less than a dozen in the entire Army.

For your edification; I had two gay guys working for me (that I was aware of). One was the hardest working guy that I had. The entire work center was aware but none of us was going to say a word to anyone. This was well before DADT. The other (and this is important) was discovered when he tested HIV positive during a routine check before minor surgery. Our ship (like many ships) had something called the "walking bloodbank". Sickbay had our blood all typed and listed. If someone needed blood immediately they would start going down the list for donors. How would you feel if you survived a terrible injury only to catch a fatal disease from a shipmate. This was the time when Freddie Mercury died from AIDS. Both these guys were great but there are responsibilities that have to be met.
That is only the disease side of the debate. I also have a story about a sexual assault upon a straight sailor by a gay sailor if you care to read it. Originally Posted by john_galt

I say this with no offense intended...
but As educated as you are, this post 'sounds' relatively ignorant.
It is true that of new HIV infections among men, approximately 60% were spread through homosexual sex BUT
It is ALSO true that approximately 50% of the men infected are black.
and Of new HIV infections among women, approximately 75% were spread through heterosexual sex.
Perhaps we should not allow straight women or black men to serve, eh?..

I say this with no offense intended...
but As educated as you are, this post 'sounds' relatively ignorant.
It is true that of new HIV infections among men, approximately 60% were spread through homosexual sex BUT
It is ALSO true that approximately 50% of the men infected are black.
and Of new HIV infections among women, approximately 75% were spread through heterosexual sex.
Perhaps we should not allow straight women or black men to serve, eh?.. Originally Posted by topnotchmassage

Still...I can't help but wonder how many sexual assults on women by STRAIGHT MEN occur in the military.

I say this with no offense intended...
but As educated as you are, this post 'sounds' relatively ignorant.
It is true that of new HIV infections among men, approximately 60% were spread through homosexual sex BUT
It is ALSO true that approximately 50% of the men infected are black.
and Of new HIV infections among women, approximately 75% were spread through heterosexual sex.
Perhaps we should not allow straight women or black men to serve, eh?.. Originally Posted by topnotchmassage

topnotch, I think you have to look at the context of which this post was made before declaring it ignorant. Freddie Mercury died in 1991 and the AIDS scare was very strong during the 80's and early 90's. Many people were under the impression that simply touching someone with AIDS or HIV would automatically give that disease to you because it wasn't understood as well as it is now. That is one of the reasons why Princess Diana was so well respected. She was willing to hold children who had the disease to show that it wasn't an automatic death sentence.

As for serving on a ship, you must also realize that there aren't huge supplies of blood on hand for transfusions like there are in metropolitan areas that have blood banks. The military is pretty good at improvising when are where needed and it simply makes sense that on a ship with limited blood supplies that a record of the crew member's blood types be kept just in case a donor is needed. And in that instance, I'd want to know if I can depend on my shipmates and the medical staff not to give me a blood borne disease if I needed a transfusion.

Here a link to CDC data:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...ivaidsexposure

In men:

Looks like in 2008, the heterosexual vs homosexual split was 20% vs 80%

and the accumulated cases up to 2008 had a split of 12% vs 88%


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In men and women:

Looks like 39% vs 61% in 2008 and 27% vs 73% in accumulated cases up to 2008.

The 50/50 split most people talk about is a worldwide number. The US is trending that way, but isn't there yet.

So JG is not completely illogical. Also, as mentioned above, the late 80's and early 90's were a time of absolute AIDS hysteria.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I the Army, we did train in sticking each other with needles during combat lifesaver training. And, since everybody has their blood type on their dog tags, we did train for the possibility of doing a battlefield blood transfusion...warm body to warm body. So, HIV is a concern. I only remember getting tested once (and then we were often encouraged to donate during civilian blood drives, and I think they tested that too). When a soldier deploys to a combat zone, he or she would be tested...so the likelyhood of getting HIV is low Now...but when we were first discovering HIV in the 80's, there wasn't testing, and alot of people did get HIV from transfusions.

I anticipate that the report, due to come out at the end of this year, will say get rid of DADT...but it will recommend that the military do more frequent HIV testing, since they do have their own mini blood supply....and statistically it would be more at risk.