• 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

roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said in my first post, I don't know if her job required a clearance or not. Guess you missed that part.

Thanks for the clarification on the secret clearance. I had a TS clearance most of my career and had forgotten about the timeframe for secret clearances.
 
obsequious said:
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.
Click to expand...

This fails, and it fails in a very simple way. Gay men are not women, they are the same gender as strait men. Gay women are not men, they are the same gender as strait women. Your objection is based on your own personal emotional reaction, and has no real basis in fact.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Under DADT, the military still would not have looked for the marriage. It has to be brought to their attention. The three criteria for discharge under DADT(telling some one you are gay, being caught in a sexual act with some one of the same sex(by the way, holding hands with some one of the same sex falls under this), or having your command learn of a gay marriage, or civil union) delineate how the command can ensure you are gay and thus discharge you. In other words, you cannot say "no, I am not gay" if you have a marriage certificate saying you are married or in a union with some one of the same sex(civil unions are considered "attempted marriages").

Further reading: http://sldn.3cdn.net/48ee19f69cf2e4d028_54m6bri8u.pdf
 
They had every right to 'out' her, it was public knowledge......;)
 
Vader said:
What the police did to this woman is unacceptable. They have ZERO right to reveal sexual orientation to ANYBODY.


Local authorities have a legal responsibility to inform the military when service members are violating military regulations.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's the part that people usually miss with DADT. A gay service member doesn't have to admit to being gay, straight, or anything else.
 
apdst said:
Vader said:
What the police did to this woman is unacceptable. They have ZERO right to reveal sexual orientation to ANYBODY.


Local authorities have a legal responsibility to inform the military when service members are violating military regulations.
Click to expand...

She was not violating military regulations. She was given a good conduct discharge because she was gay. Being married to some one of the same sex just gave her no room to argue that she was not gay. If she was in violation of military regulations(for example, she was caught engaged in sodomy), she would receive a general or other than honorable discharge. I have linked the DADT policies for you before.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
apdst said:
She was not violating military regulations. She was given a good conduct discharge because she was gay. Being married to some one of the same sex just gave her no room to argue that she was not gay. If she was in violation of military regulations(for example, she was caught engaged in sodomy), she would receive a general or other than honorable discharge. I have linked the DADT policies for you before.
Click to expand...

It may have slipped your notice, but there is a ban on gays serving in the military. She enlisted, knowing that the ban is in place, therefore she violated military regulations.

Also, you are aware of the DoD regulations regarding dependents. Yes?

She was in serious violation for not informing her chain of command that she has a spouse. Since she was living off post, no doubt she was receiving BAQ. There's potential here to defraud the government.

So, no, she isn't an innocent victim, here.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
She was not violating military regulations. She was given a good conduct discharge because she was gay. Being married to some one of the same sex just gave her no room to argue that she was not gay. If she was in violation of military regulations(for example, she was caught engaged in sodomy), she would receive a general or other than honorable discharge. I have linked the DADT policies for you before.
Click to expand...

USMEPCOM Req 601-23

d. A member may be separated for violation of laws or regulations regarding sexual conduct of members or
the Armed Forces, for example, engaging or attempting to engage in a homosexual act or soliciting another to
engage in such an act; for stating that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, or for
marrying or attempting to marry an individual of the same sex.
Click to expand...

She went to another state and got married to someone of the same-sex.

Right or wrong, that's against military regulations.

Like simply calling people homophobes, claiming she didn't brake any regulations harms efforts to allow gays to serve openly because you are being dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Damn, that sucks. One would hope there would be some accountability on behalf of the officer's actions; but there's not a lot of oversight with police these days. They'll do what they want, when they want, and the rest of us can piss off. But it sounds like there was bad moves on the police, and it needs to be looked into and punishment should be handed out.
 
apdst said:
Redress said:
It may have slipped your notice, but there is a ban on gays serving in the military. She enlisted, knowing that the ban is in place, therefore she violated military regulations.

Also, you are aware of the DoD regulations regarding dependents. Yes?

She was in serious violation for not informing her chain of command that she has a spouse. Since she was living off post, no doubt she was receiving BAQ. There's potential here to defraud the government.

So, no, she isn't an innocent victim, here.
Click to expand...

How in the world could she defraud the government? There is absolutely no way that she could have claimed her spouse as a dependent without proof. The only proof she would have is the marriage certificate, which would have proven that she was violating DADT. And, she was either an E-5 or E-6, which in most branches authorizes her to request to live off base and receive single BAH. Also, even without DADT, her spouse would not be entitled to be considered as a dependent due to DOMA.

And the rule is wrong. It should be changed.
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
USMEPCOM Req 601-23



She went to another state and got married to someone of the same-sex.

Right or wrong, that's against military regulations.

Like simply calling people homophobes, claiming she didn't brake any regulations harms efforts to allow gays to serve openly because you are being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Semi-sorta. It's a semantics thing for the most part. Think of it as the difference between a civil and criminal trial. From my earlier source:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges are administrative in
nature, not criminal, and therefore, service members being
discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are entitled to a set
administrative process.
Click to expand...

They are not being charged with misconduct, gays are just assumed to be "incompatible" with military service.
 
apdst said:
It may have slipped your notice, but there is a ban on gays serving in the military. She enlisted, knowing that the ban is in place, therefore she violated military regulations.
Click to expand...

Gays are allowed to serve in the military under DADT, as long as they do not "tell". The command learning she was married is equivalent to her "telling"

Also, you are aware of the DoD regulations regarding dependents. Yes?

She was in serious violation for not informing her chain of command that she has a spouse. Since she was living off post, no doubt she was receiving BAQ. There's potential here to defraud the government.

So, no, she isn't an innocent victim, here.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this crap. According to the federal government, she is not married(see DOMA). She would not be able to get married BAH(what BAQ and VHA is called these days from what I hear), and was getting single BAH. This actually saves the government money. With 9 years in, probably an E-6, so about a 218 dollar savings to the government a month. Gotta hate people saving the government money...

Source for numbers: Different Types of BAH
 
apdst said:
Local authorities have a legal responsibility to inform the military when service members are violating military regulations.
Click to expand...

Link?

Does that responsibility extend to making up some bull**** story about how they happened to look through her window and see a marriage license that just happened to take place after she declined to abandon her post to come home and help them with their investigation?
 
RightinNYC said:
Link?

Does that responsibility extend to making up some bull**** story about how they happened to look through her window and see a marriage license that just happened to take place after she declined to abandon her post to come home and help them with their investigation?
Click to expand...

Unless you're alleging that the cop entered her home illegally, even if there is no requirement for cops to report you don't have a point.

In your estimation, how else would the cops have known she was married? Not guesses, but how else would they actually have known?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Unless you're alleging that the cop entered her home illegally, even if there is no requirement for cops to report you don't have a point.

In your estimation, how else would the cops have known she was married? Not guesses, but how else would they actually have known?
Click to expand...

I'm alleging that the story of "we just happened to be there looking for her and just happened to look through a kitchen window and see a marriage certificate and just happened to call the base, not because we wanted to rat her out, but because it was relevant to our investigation" is a load of ****.

I don't know how they would have known. They could have interviewed a neighbor, they could have interviewed her wife in the past, they could have known somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody, etc.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm alleging that the story of "we just happened to be there looking for her and just happened to look through a kitchen window and see a marriage certificate and just happened to call the base, not because we wanted to rat her out, but because it was relevant to our investigation" is a load of ****.

I don't know how they would have known. They could have interviewed a neighbor, they could have interviewed her wife in the past, they could have known somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, they could have known some other way and just found a way to fit their knowledge into the situation.

Cops do this all the time. "I have dirt on you so you'd better cooperate or else".

I also don't believe their phone call to the Sgt was 100% professional and civil. I'll bet you there were words exchanged.

As a person who supports abolishing anti-blackmail laws, all I have to say about this Sgt is, well, she shouldn't have gotten married while in the service then. She knew it was against regulation before she got married, she hid it by not reporting herself to her CO, and the cops got her. She made her bed.

Gays, I hope the rule is overturned very soon, and I hope this Sgt is allowed to return to duty when it is, but don't be stupid and **** yourself before the rule is changed. Your country is more important than your personal relationships, so your duty to your country MUST come first.; otherwise don't sign up.
 
Last edited:
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...

How did the police find out she was a lesbian?
 
Navy Pride said:
How did the police find out she was a lesbian?
Click to expand...

Go back and read post #2 to the thread. (Re: found marriage license on kitchen table)

apdst said:
It may have slipped your notice, but there is a ban on gays serving in the military. She enlisted, knowing that the ban is in place, therefore she violated military regulations.

Also, you are aware of the DoD regulations regarding dependents. Yes?

She was in serious violation for not informing her chain of command that she has a spouse. Since she was living off post, no doubt she was receiving BAQ. There's potential here to defraud the government.

So, no, she isn't an innocent victim, here.
Click to expand...

If she was receiving BAQ, it was probably single-BAQ since as you've stated she did not inform the military she was "married". There's no violation there; Sgt Newsome could have easily claimed that her "partner" was merely a roommate or a close friend and gotten away with it and there wasn't a thing the military could have done about it... UNTIL they caughter her with her skirt up....so to speak. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Go back and read post #2 to the thread. (Re: found marriage license on kitchen table)



If she was receiving BAQ, it was probably single-BAQ since as you've stated she did not inform the military she was "married". There's no violation there; Sgt Newsome could have easily claimed that her "partner" was merely a roommate or a close friend and gotten away with it and there wasn't a thing the military could have done about it... UNTIL they caughter her with her skirt up....so to speak. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Oh spare us. Of course it was a violation. She was married to another woman. She took the step of actually informing another part of the government and made public her true wishes.
 
texmaster said:
Oh spare us. Of course it was a violation. She was married to another woman. She took the step of actually informing another part of the government and made public her true wishes.
Click to expand...

Which part of the federal government did she inform?
 
From what I read it does not appear that the existance of the "marriage certificate" had anything to do with why the police were there. If the "discovery" of the "marriage certificate" was a coincidence the police had no right to divulge that infomation to the military. I am in no way an advocate of same sex "marriage" but I am enough of a libertarian to beleive that the Lesbian Sgt had every right to her privacy from the prying eyes of the police for this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom