DADT repealed!!

[bankside]

Equality that comes at the cost of joining in the oppression of others is not equality.

Soldiers have to follow the laws of war, but ultimately, moral responsibility for the war and its conduct rests with those in charge of it, (and in a democracy, the people who vote for those in charge of it.)

 

[quasar]

It really is great news for America!

I don't think he meant it was equal to attacking North Korea, but equated to turning American into a dictatorship where the President operated outside the laws and legislations of his own country, invoking only his own will as law, as occurs in North Korea.

Out of interest, when it was first known that the DADT legislation would be voted on, could Obama have requested that discharges and investigations were put on ice until the outcome of the vote?

It's a step in the right direction mate. Once one piece of discriminatory legislation bites the dust, others will surely follow. There'll be a time period of people thinking "shit they got DADT repealed what more do they want" and that's when you go to Santa with your wish list...

Indeed, now is the time to write your thank-you letters/emails to those who supported it, and to say, 'right, enough of DADT talk already, now - about gay marriage and other equality legislation...'

 

[construct]

It really is great news for America!Out of interest, when it was first known that the DADT legislation would be voted on, could Obama have requested that discharges and investigations were put on ice until the outcome of the vote?

Well no, not really. DADT is statutory law as opposed to policy directives about other restrictions on eligibility for service. It would be highly unusual for gay personnel to be stop-lossed.

 

[quasar]

^ Thanks. I remember that here in the UK at one point before the age of consent was reduced from 21 to 18 (it's now down to 16) the courts and police were basically told to turn a blind eye as the law was going to change. I wasn't sure if it was within the President's power to do something similar.

 

[Rex]

so i'm confused.

is this in Limbo when Obama signs it, like what's the status of it now?

Let's say a friend of mine in the military were to ask me if i was gay, (and i trusted them and they were a true friend), should i just still say no or...

If he was a good friend and you knew he wouldn't out you, then you'd probably be fine.

The actual change into the law could take up to a year though.

 

[construct]

so i'm confused.

is this in Limbo when Obama signs it, like what's the status of it now?

Let's say a friend of mine in the military were to ask me if i was gay, (and i trusted them and they were a true friend), should i just still say no or...

There is a certification that the change will have no serious impact on military readiness that has to be issued to Congress. That certification must be signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (all of whom support repeal). Once that certification is issued, a period of 60 days begins. When the 60 days are up, the repeal takes effect.

So . . . until all that happens, you must continue to behave as though the bill were not passed. DADT is still in effect. Nothing has changed . . . yet. It will--sooner rather than later.

If your friend (the one that you trust) were to ask you two weeks ago whether you were gay, would you tell him? Would you lie? Would you sidestep the question or refuse to answer? Do the same thing until the repeal actually takes effect.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[andy12]

Soldiers have to follow the laws of war, but ultimately, moral responsibility for the war and its conduct rests with those in charge of it, (and in a democracy, the people who vote for those in charge of it.)

I don't disagree, the big criminals wear suits and ties. However, this is one-step forward, two-steps back. I suspect gays won't feel so bad about the misdeeds of our military. That's a shame.

 

[andy12]

The Military is not meant to oppress anyone and for the people who join it aren't joining it for that reason.

That's the only goal of any military, past or present. The bullshit about freedom and patriotism is the dress up.

How you feel about the Military and what it does is irrelevant.

Sure, if you don't care about hundreds of thousands of people and trillions of dollars down the tube.

 

[Rex]

Without a military you wouldn't have your freedom andy. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a need for one but your not being logical.

 

[metta]

We definitely need a strong military, however, there is a lot of waste in our military. We really do not need to keep troops all over the World on a regular basis. For example, we do not need to, nor can we afford to, keep 50,000 troops in Europe on a regular basis. Europe should be able to defend themselves. We have over 57k troops in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

I also don't think that North Korea should be only our responsibility. Japan, China, and the other asian nations should be more involved in that area.

 

[andy12]

Without a military you wouldn't have your freedom andy. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a need for one but your not being logical.

There's a fine line (more like a canyon) between defense and aggression. We need a military but we don't need perpetual war. Gays or anyone of conscience should tackle that first before wanting to be part of the death machine.

We need firefighters too, but not the ones who cause more fires than they extinguish.

Why is it that we had DADT repealed before gay marriage, ERA, and other non-discrimination policies are passed? The war machine needs more blood, it's that simple.

 

[construct]

Yay! Gays can openly and proudly aid in the killing of brown people! Truly a celebration.

Fair enough. You have understood. The road to equality includes equality in guilt as well as equality in honor. That's fine. I'm all for it. Equality in guilt is the shadow side of the goal we are striving for, and I embrace it.

 

[frankfrank]

There's a fine line (more like a canyon) between defense and aggression. We need a military but we don't need perpetual war. Gays or anyone of conscience should tackle that first before wanting to be part of the death machine.

Why is it that we had DADT repealed before gay marriage, ERA, and other non-discrimination policies are passed? The war machine needs more blood, it's that simple.

Even with DADT repealed, I don't see why a gay person, OR ANYBODY ELSE for that matter, would go into the "Service." (I actually haven't heard it called THAT in a long time...is that now archaic?) It seems, in recent years, that the government leaves veterans twisting in the wind in various ways, and count on the 112th Congress to try their best to get rid of funding for the V. A., etc.

I can FULLY understand DADT being repealed before gay marriage becoming a recognized right in "the Land of the free, and the Home of the brave." "Marriage" is one of those things which is held as sacred and sacrosanct, a "bigger than life" kind of thing, and "gay marriage" is still a bridge too far for a lot of people. Thankfully those people (a higher percentage from my generation, and the generation that preceded mine) are dying off and such, and it is inevitable that eventually it WILL be the law of the land.

I never could understand why the ERA never got passed, though. Of course it takes a LOT to pass a Constitutional Amendment, but I always thought the ERA was totally a no-brainer...

 

[andy12]

Fair enough. You have understood. The road to equality includes equality in guilt as well as equality in honor. That's fine. I'm all for it. Equality in guilt is the shadow side of the goal we are striving for, and I embrace it.

How is this equality though? The military is an oppressor and individuals within it have severely limited rights to begin with. It's as if we expanded slavery to include gay men. Why celebrate?

 

[metta]

UPDATE:

Tomorrow, December 22nd, morning at 9:00 a.m. ET, watch President Obama will sign into law the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010. This historic event will be live-streamed and MSNBC will have live coverage.

 

[Rex]

Even with DADT repealed, I don't see why a gay person, OR ANYBODY ELSE for that matter, would go into the "Service." (I actually haven't heard it called THAT in a long time...is that now archaic?)

1. The economy sucks.

2. Job security.

3. Great benefits.

4. Able to travel.

5. Meets lots of people.

6. Serve your country.

theres some reasons

 

[asu1117]

I have little patience for anyone who is anti Military. But comparing it to slavery? That's just absurd. Anyone who hates the Military that much should just pack up and leave.

Move to Iceland or Liechtenstein.


But clean your hippy dreadlocks and hemp before you leave.


And until you do decide to leave show some respect for those who are risking their lives so that you can freely bitch about whatever you please.

 

[bankside]

I have little patience for anyone who is anti Military. But comparing it to slavery? That's just absurd. Anyone who hates the Military that much should just pack up and leave.

Move to Iceland or Liechtenstein.


But clean your hippy dreadlocks and hemp before you leave.


And until you do decide to leave show some respect for those who are risking their lives so that you can freely bitch about whatever you please.

I don't agree with andy's take on this. And I agree with thanking those who, for instance, fought against the Nazis in World War II so that hundreds of millions could live freely. (Or under the thumb of communism, it was kind of a split decision.) But at least it wasn't Nazis!

But there is always a risk that gratitude in the face of sacrifice can be twisted into militaristic, nationalist chest thumping. So I will just add to your remarks that some of the greatest lights of humanity who have risked their lives so that you and I can freely bitch about whatever we please, did so without ever being issued a weapon.

 

[andy12]

I have little patience for anyone who is anti Military. But comparing it to slavery? That's just absurd. Anyone who hates the Military that much should just pack up and leave.

Yeah, why have people left with a conscience? It's much easier to massacre two million Vietnamese, drop toxins on their rice, and bomb their power plants (like a recent Republican presidential candidate, talk about palling around with terrorists). Or a hundred thousand Iraqis.

And until you do decide to leave show some respect for those who are risking their lives so that you can freely bitch about whatever you please.

So they're fighting for my right to shut up? Oh, and here's the kicker: I'm paying their salary as a taxpayer. And they demand I shut up about the crappy job they're doing with MY MONEY? They can't win a war against people with sticks and stones yet they kill tons of civilians in the process. Where do they get the balls?

You want a government-provided job (talk about socialism and welfare) because you can't get one in the free market like the rest of us? The least they can do is shut up if they're stirring up trouble making the entire world hate this country.

 

[andy12]

I don't agree with andy's take on this. And I agree with thanking those who, for instance, fought against the Nazis in World War II so that hundreds of millions could live freely. (Or under the thumb of communism, it was kind of a split decision.) But at least it wasn't Nazis!

Except World War II wasn't fought for freedom, it was fought for self-preservation. America and the rest of the world turned away Jews for example.

If we want to talk about the AMAZING amount of freedom gays had under democracy, you'll be delighted to note that communist East Germany repealed its anti-homosexual laws before the freedom-loving West Germans did. I'm just 25 but I hear the 1970's and 80's were a fabulous time for gays in the US.