Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

spud_meister said:

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

Click to expand...

You mean she could violate her oath unless one part of the government knew what she did with another.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dammit! I was saving that for the first person who challenged the marriage itself! :mrgreen:

texmaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that DADT specifically mentioned "marriage or attempted marriage." Now that Redress pointed that out, this is just more evidence that DADT is mindbogglingly retarded and deserves to be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

RightinNYC said:

I wasn't aware that DADT specifically mentioned "marriage or attempted marriage." Now that Redress pointed that out, this is just more evidence that DADT is mindbogglingly retarded and deserves to be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

Click to expand...

The policy is stupid in so many ways as to be something of a joke, but a painful one for gays attempting to serve their country.

Vader said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm a strong supporter of gays serving openly in the military, but the lesbian is in the wrong here. She knew the rules and she broke them anyway. Cops were there for legitimate reasons, and are duty bound to report a crime.

I'm glad to see she got an honorable, though.

Until the rule is changed it has to be followed. Hopefully it'll change soon.

RightinNYC said:

I wasn't aware that DADT specifically mentioned "marriage or attempted marriage." Now that Redress pointed that out, this is just more evidence that DADT is mindbogglingly retarded and deserves to be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

Click to expand...

Is it really that hard for you to admit she is in the wrong?

texmaster said:

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

Click to expand...

..... what makes marriage certificates public?

Hatuey said:

..... what makes marriage certificates public?

Click to expand...

The freedom of information act.
The display of sed cert. which can be seen in public (numerous examples of cases where exhibiting your private things which can be seen from outside MAKE it public... though usually drinking or exposing ones self)


Let us consider a few things, shall we?
1. You gay marry a wanted felon in a career which frowns upon such... meh.
...

To hell with that line and logic.

Your issues seem to be with DADT.

Do the women in this arena (debatepolitics.com) care to have co-ed showers in all gyms?

Why not?

I'm out.

Hi.

(Call me a homophobe. Dare ya.)

texmaster said:

Is it really that hard for you to admit she is in the wrong?

Click to expand...

He is no more wrong than you are though. The fact that a marriage certificate is public is irrelevant, since the military will not look for it unless they are made aware of it. Once the military is told that such a marriage exists, they get the record, and it's proof of a DADT policy violation and generally an honorable discharge.

obsequious said:

The freedom of information act.
The display of sed cert. which can be seen in public (numerous examples of cases where exhibiting your private things which can be seen from outside MAKE it public... though usually drinking or exposing ones self)


Let us consider a few things, shall we?
1. You gay marry a wanted felon in a career which frowns upon such... meh.
...

To hell with that line and logic.

Your issues seem to be with DADT.

Do the women in this arena (debatepolitics.com) care to have co-ed showers in all gyms?

Why not?

I'm out.

Hi.

(Call me a homophobe. Dare ya.)

Click to expand...

I'm not going to call you anything but hard to understand.

What does the women of DP having co-ed showers have to do with anything?

And sorry, I outgrew dares in junior high.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

I'm not going to call you anything but hard to understand.

What does the women of DP having co-ed showers have to do with anything?

And sorry, I outgrew dares in junior high.

Click to expand...

I will try and be more coherent.

The analogy is due to circumstance in the military. Men and women's quarters, and facilities are segregated for the very reason that there is a DADT policy.

For privacy from sexual objectification, and safety... though somewhat reversed. An open gay will be ostracized due to that whole first thing.

Are women considered to be "closed minded" or "archaic" because they do not wish to be naked before their sexual counterparts? If you are considered to be a sexual counterpart do you feel you should be forced to be naked before them?


I thought it was kind of an obvious reference... but I will try and be simpler in the future.

This woman has done nothing bad and she is being wronged by the law. Laws that injure the innocent and protect the people that have hurt them have no place in a society that values justice.

Pity there are so many assholes out there who value heterosexuality above justice.

Befuddled_Stoner said:

This woman has done nothing bad and she is being wronged by the law. Laws that injure the innocent and protect the people that have hurt them have no place in a society that values justice.

Pity there are so many assholes out there who value heterosexuality above justice.

Click to expand...

Either we live in an open society, with coed bathrooms... or we keep our sexuality private.


I believe in privacy. I believe in the law protecting sed privacy.

texmaster said:

Is it really that hard for you to admit she is in the wrong?

Click to expand...

She's wrong in that she violated the rules of DADT. DADT is wrong in that it's a terrible policy. The police are wrong in that it seems pretty clear that they're lying about their actions.

Whole lotta wrong to go around.

Let me also say that I believe in gay marriage... but not for the reasons I have seen anyone else ever voice.

I think that it is not a violation of "gay" peoples rights. There IS equal protection under the current law (in my state) for "gays" and "straights". Neither of us can marry the same sex... be it for love or convenience.

I believe that it is exclusionary of hermaphrodites to write sex specific language into ANY law... which makes me outside the curve I think.

This is why it should be left up to the commander's discretion. There was no need to discharge her.

Ethereal said:

This is why it should be left up to the commander's discretion. There was no need to discharge her.

Click to expand...

Well... according to the edicts of the terms of military conduct... there was.

Vader said:

The Dakota's, Montana, and Northern Idaho, seem to be plagued by white supremist nazi assholes.

Click to expand...

:roll:

I happen to like the people that live in my region of the country. They are good people.

People everywhere, who do not believe as you do, seem to be plagued by something I bet...

Redress said:

From the linked article:



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

Click to expand...

No. Clearances are renewed every 5 years, and if you change jobs, it may trigger an investigation if the new job requires a higher clearance level. I was responding to the notion that the Air Force wouldn't have taken any action that might have discovered the marriage certificate.

Moon said:

No. Clearances are renewed every 5 years, and if you change jobs, it may trigger an investigation if the new job requires a higher clearance level. I was responding to the notion that the Air Force wouldn't have taken any action that might have discovered the marriage certificate.

Click to expand...

First, not everyone requires a clearance for their job. Second, 5 years is for a top secret clearance. Secret clearances last 10 years. And the most commonly needed security clearance is secret.

Hatuey said:

..... what makes marriage certificates public?

Click to expand...

Marriage certificates are a matter of public record, just like deeds, titles, birth certificates, etc.

You would be surprised just how much information about you is available to the public.

Hatuey if you didn't know this then no wonder you get so upset in gay-marriage threads. Marriage is a lot less private then you think.

Councilman said:

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?

Click to expand...

C'mon, guy. This is in no way a "Wag the Dog" situation; has nothing to do with the health care reform issue at all - not even close! Can we stay on topic, please?

The local police were clearly out of line here. They couldn't force Sgt. Newsome to come home to rat out her partner, so they ratted her out instead....low blow! And Redress is 100% correct; if she lied about her sexual orientation, Sgt Newsome could be charged with "Conduct Unbecoming..." or something along those lines and receive a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). If she admits her sexual preference and her lesbian marriage, she's outta there anyway. Sgt Newsome couldn't win!

texmaster said:

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

Click to expand...

Gina said:

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.

Click to expand...

texmaster said:

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

Click to expand...

This is a sticking point. Moreover, it's very far reaching! It's on par with saying that although a person was cleared of all charges from a legal incident from the past, because the records are now part of the public domain and someone got their hands on it and made the records avaliable to the military that the individual's privacy wasn't violated. Well, yes it was in a round-about way.

Sgt. Newsome didn't tell the military of her sexual orientation nor did the military ask. That's essentially the agreement between military servicemen/women and the federal government - no direct acknowledgement on either side. It's the 3rd-party issue that's the big question. Nonetheless, it's the way the local police went about ratting out Sgt Newsome in their attempts to capture her partner that I have a problem with. As far as we know the Sgt had nothing to do with the crimes her partner committed. Therefore, IMO, she shouldn't have been made a victim unless there was evidence to either connect her with the thefts, it was known that she was an accessor thereof, or it if was clear she knew of the crimes and was harboring a fugitive. Unless and until any one of those aspects could have been proven, I really don't think the local police should have violated Sgt Newsome's privacy whether her marriage license was sitting on her kitchen table or if it was being sold on eBay.

obsequious said:

Either we live in an open society, with coed bathrooms... or we keep our sexuality private.


I believe in privacy. I believe in the law protecting sed privacy.

Click to expand...

Separate bathrooms for men and women in the military is due to the 2 things
1) that is the accepted norm in society
2) having men and women share facilities would cause a whole lot of problems when you're talking about the size of units the military normally has sharing such facilities. There would be a huge rise in incidents of sexual harassment and possibly even sexual assault.

What right do you have to a separation of facilities for heterosexuals and homosexuals? I've not heard of anyone actually doing this. And there are many, many jobs around the country where gays work openly with straight people, with no separate facilities.

The fact that DADT is in place should tell you guys that there are gays in the military. And a guy looking at a guy naked does not prove that the first is gay. I heard most of the guys remark on other guys' penis size while I was in, and I'm pretty sure most of those guys weren't gay.

The military is only looking into separate facilities to be prepared for critics who bring this up as an issue. They do not actually believe there needs to be such a division.

And the fact that military members could serve openly after DADT is repealed does not mean that they will be required to share their sexuality with everyone. So how would you figure out who should go into these separate facilities? You would have to prove the person is gay first to ostracize them in such a way. And I don't see a lot of gay servicemembers coming out publicly if they think that it will just cause them to be ostracized from their unit. And I don't see the military wanting to spend a lot of money proving that someone is gay through an investigation just to spend more money to provide that person with separate berthing and heads.