• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Newsome and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the western South Dakota police department, claiming the officers violated her privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation. The case also highlights concerns over the ability of third parties to "out" service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.

Full Article: Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military - Yahoo! News

What the police did to this woman is unacceptable. They have ZERO right to reveal sexual orientation to ANYBODY.

Despite the fact that the police, who have arbitrarily declared themselves innocent (can you say cover-up), I find fault in their actions.

The officers responsible for contacting the military need to be fired. The ranking officers who covered up their actions need to be fired.

I hope the victim sues the pants off the police, the city, and the State of South Dakota.



 
The whole thing sounds like such bull****.

The Rapid City Police Department says Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when they showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

She didn't leave work immediately and come home to help you find someone who lived in her house, and that makes her "not cooperative"? Since when do the police have the authority to make you do that?

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

Oh, you just happened to look through a window, see a piece of paper from across the room, and be able to read it to make out that she was married to a chick? And you then just happened to tell the base solely because you thought it would help prove that she knew where the chick was? Such ****ing garbage.

Seems like a pretty obvious case of police misconduct.
 
The whole thing sounds like such bull****.



She didn't leave work immediately and come home to help you find someone who lived in her house, and that makes her "not cooperative"? Since when do the police have the authority to make you do that?



Oh, you just happened to look through a window, see a piece of paper from across the room, and be able to read it to make out that she was married to a chick? And you then just happened to tell the base solely because you thought it would help prove that she knew where the chick was? Such ****ing garbage.

Seems like a pretty obvious case of police misconduct.

I agree. It stinks of retaliation on the part of the Nazi police department.

The Dakota's, Montana, and Northern Idaho, seem to be plagued by white supremist nazi assholes. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that some of them joined the police force.
 
Last edited:
Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Newsome and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the western South Dakota police department, claiming the officers violated her privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation. The case also highlights concerns over the ability of third parties to "out" service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.

Full Article: Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military - Yahoo! News

What the police did to this woman is unacceptable. They have ZERO right to reveal sexual orientation to ANYBODY.

Despite the fact that the police, who have arbitrarily declared themselves innocent (can you say cover-up), I find fault in their actions.

The officers responsible for contacting the military need to be fired. The ranking officers who covered up their actions need to be fired.

I hope the victim sues the pants off the police, the city, and the State of South Dakota.




The sad part is the discharge is perfectly legal. Once the command has the allegation, the gay servicemember has two options, lie(which puts them in a bad position legally, with a potential BCD at worse, a general discharge at best), or admit it and take the discharge.
 
Great another story to take focus off important issues.

Is it too bad the police wanted to get this woman? Yes!

Do they need to pay a price for it? Yes!

Is it worth more than 700 posts when we need to spending our time trying to stop the Obama Reid and Pelosi express from derailing the nation with the Health care Cap & Trade HOAXES the threat to wreck our economy and cure not a damn thing.

Let's hope this former soldier gets justice. I'm not by any stretch pro gay but right is right and wrong is BS.

Now have you told your People on Capital Hill you don't want this BS or have you fallen for the Obama lies?
 
Last edited:
Oh, you just happened to look through a window, see a piece of paper from across the room, and be able to read it to make out that she was married to a chick? And you then just happened to tell the base solely because you thought it would help prove that she knew where the chick was? Such ****ing garbage.

Seems like a pretty obvious case of police misconduct.

It sure is. She pissed them off so they retaliated.

I agree with whoever said in this thread she should sue the officers, their supervisor and the state. Her privacy was violated.

In the meantime, DADT needs to be repealed now.
 
The whole thing sounds like such bull****.



She didn't leave work immediately and come home to help you find someone who lived in her house, and that makes her "not cooperative"? Since when do the police have the authority to make you do that?



Oh, you just happened to look through a window, see a piece of paper from across the room, and be able to read it to make out that she was married to a chick? And you then just happened to tell the base solely because you thought it would help prove that she knew where the chick was? Such ****ing garbage.

Seems like a pretty obvious case of police misconduct.

Nothing about police misconduct here. The issue is DADT. The military didn't ask, and she didn't tell.
 
Nothing about police misconduct here. The issue is DADT. The military didn't ask, and she didn't tell.

WRONG.

The police told on her. They violated her privacy and it needs to cost all of the officers involved their careers. Additionally, their supervisors need to be fired as well.
 
The sad part is the discharge is perfectly legal. Once the command has the allegation, the gay servicemember has two options, lie(which puts them in a bad position legally, with a potential BCD at worse, a general discharge at best), or admit it and take the discharge.

The fact that the police shared confidential information with the Air Force is very important. The police were wrong and they need to be fired and lose their pensions over it.
 
Nothing about police misconduct here. The issue is DADT. The military didn't ask, and she didn't tell.

Indeed, the police told them and that is part of the issue with DADT, that third parties can rat out a gay service person even though they and their commanders followed DADT. It's wrong.
 
The fact that the police shared confidential information with the Air Force is very important. The police were wrong and they need to be fired and lose their pensions over it.

Not arguing that point at all. The police where assholes at the very least, hopefully what they did was illegal so they can get slammed for it. My point was simply that once they had done that, the military acted perfectly within the rules to discharge her...in fact, it was what they are supposed to do, and some ones 9 year career ruined.
 
The fact that the police shared confidential information with the Air Force is very important. The police were wrong and they need to be fired and lose their pensions over it.

Oh spare us this bleeding heart bull****. She knew what the policy was and she knew the risks.
 
Oh spare us this bleeding heart bull****. She knew what the policy was and she knew the risks.

And as those who support your position constantly argue, she kept her preference to herself, not flaunting it at work, but nonetheless, she's lost her career.
 
And as those who support your position constantly argue, she kept her preference to herself, not flaunting it at work, but nonetheless, she's lost her career.

No she did not. She got married. A legally binding and PUBLIC certificate flaunting the policy she agreed to be under.
 
No she did not. She got married. A legally binding and PUBLIC certificate flaunting the policy she agreed to be under.

it in no way entered into her military career, she kept it at home, no-one asked, and she didnt tell, and thats the point, the only way someone could have found out is if they had specifically sort after that information, which violates DADT
 
No she did not. She got married. A legally binding and PUBLIC certificate flaunting the policy she agreed to be under.

How dare she parade her relationship around in the privacy of her own home!
 
Oh spare us this bleeding heart bull****. She knew what the policy was and she knew the risks.

It's not bleeding heart anything. She was doing precisely what DADT required; it was not her doing that the police violated her privacy.
 
it in no way entered into her military career, she kept it at home, no-one asked, and she didnt tell, and thats the point, the only way someone could have found out is if they had specifically sort after that information, which violates DADT

Sorry, she did not keep it at home. She notified the government of her intentions by obtaining a legal marriage license. There is no wiggle room here. If she was just living with her, ok thats a much harder case to make but a marriage license? Please.
 
How dare she parade her relationship around in the privacy of her own home!

By obtaining a PUBLIC marriage license!

How can you pretend she is following the laws set by the government then going to another part of the government and getting a legal and public contract that is specifically against her oath and still pretend she did nothing wrong?

Explain that to me. I'd love to here the spin on it.
 
It's not bleeding heart anything. She was doing precisely what DADT required; it was not her doing that the police violated her privacy.

She forfeited her privacy when she obtained a public and legally binding document which was in direct violation of her oath.
 
Sorry, she did not keep it at home. She notified the government of her intentions by obtaining a legal marriage license. There is no wiggle room here. If she was just living with her, ok thats a much harder case to make but a marriage license? Please.

public or not, its irrelevant, the military wouldn't have sought out anything about her private life as that would violate their end of DADT
 
I hate to do this, but Texmaster is, in a way, right. One of the things banned by DADT is "marriage or attempted marriage" to some one of the same sex. Now the military won't look for evidence, but if presented with it, it is a done deal.

This does not mean the police where right(they where not), only that she did, by getting married, violate military regulations.
 
public or not, its irrelevant, the military wouldn't have sought out anything about her private life as that would violate their end of DADT

Not necessarily. In the course of investigations for initial security clearances and renewals, they are generally quite thorough at uncovering information about you, especially if it's something such as a legal document filed with a state or local government. I don't know if her job required her to have a security clearance, but it's very possible the marriage license would have been discovered by the military anyway.
 
And this is exactly why DADT should be repealed, along with any and all military rules banning gays. There is no need to discharge someone just because she wants to spend declare her intentions publicly to spend her life with the woman she loves. That declaration in no way affected what she did for the military. The only reason her being gay affects her military career at all is because of DADT. That is just stupid.
 
Not necessarily. In the course of investigations for initial security clearances and renewals, they are generally quite thorough at uncovering information about you, especially if it's something such as a legal document filed with a state or local government. I don't know if her job required her to have a security clearance, but it's very possible the marriage license would have been discovered by the military anyway.

From the linked article:

n aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force

She was pretty free and clear of any of what you mention.
 
Back
Top Bottom