Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Redress said:

It's part of the process. The case does not go strait to SCOTUS, it has to go through the court system first. The 9th court did exactly what it is supposed to do, hear a challenge to a federal law. The repeated claims that the 9th does not have jurisdiction are hilarious but false.

Click to expand...

The defense could appeal to the SCOTUS, but why would they because the judgement by the 9th Circuit has no grounds except as precedent for future cases. However it only relates to DADT and personally I don't believe the SCOTUS will ever touch DADT, generally they stay out of military affairs and let the Commander and Chief handle it.

liblady said:

their interpretations are called rulings.

Click to expand...

Still judges are supposed to interpret the consitutional laws into current laws that are to be passed, but instead activist judges use the social norm/status to current laws, which is unconstitutional. Unless the judge can prove that somewhere in the Constitution states the DADT or refers to the operation of the DADT is in conflict with a current Constitutional law, this is an activist judge's ruling that is biased.

Boo Radley said:

And there are consititutional laws concerning discrimination. That is what they are suppose to do.

Click to expand...

Well then, how about the physical shortcomings? If i have flat feet and I want to join the military, this is discriminating against my weight/physical characteristics. And you can't say this is two different things when they are both under the same law.

MCS117 said:

Still judges are supposed to interpret the consitutional laws into current laws that are to be passed, but instead activist judges use the social norm/status to current laws, which is unconstitutional. Unless the judge can prove that somewhere in the Constitution states the DADT or refers to the operation of the DADT is in conflict with a current Constitutional law, this is an activist judge's ruling that is biased.

Click to expand...

Laws are not wriiten in a vaccum. What is is seen as discriminatory has always canged from time period to time period. Laws are not and never can be crystal clear, allowing for no misunderstandings or room for interpretation. So, all judges bring some of them to the reading of the law. This is why they often disagree. And they explain their rulings when they rule. This is proper and not activist.

Boo Radley said:

Laws are not wriiten in a vaccum. What is is seen as discriminatory has always canged from time period to time period. Laws are not and never can be crystal clear, allowing for no misunderstandings or room for interpretation. So, all judges bring some of them to the reading of the law. This is why they often disagree. And they explain their rulings when they rule. This is proper and not activist.

Click to expand...

Well this is where rights and lefts branch off, because I believe that if the law is not clear, then you tell them either to make it clearer or do not have a ruling at that moment till a new law updates existing laws. It's the judges role of making sure the laws are following the Constitutional law, not to make their own biased rulings on them based on "the social norm." It's just not their job to do that.

Wonder why justice wears a blindfold? It's to not see what is happening at the moment, but to hear the case and rule based on their "knowledge" of the Constitution....

MCS117 said:

Well this is where rights and lefts branch off, because I believe that if the law is not clear, then you tell them either to make it clearer or do not have a ruling at that moment till a new law updates existing laws. It's the judges role of making sure the laws are following the Constitutional law, not to make their own biased rulings on them based on "the social norm." It's just not their job to do that.

Wonder why justice wears a blindfold? It's to not see what is happening at the moment, but to hear the case and rule based on their "knowledge" of the Constitution....

Click to expand...

Such clarity is not possible. Never has been and never will be. Anyone who knows anything about language understands this, which is why such courts are designed in the first place. It is wrongly portaryed as a right and left thing, when it is really a logic thing. And once a law is written, it is no longer about what was intended as much as it is about what was actually written. So, when you say you can't discriminate, the law has reprecusions, maybe even unintended ones. And ruling on that is not activist, but law.

Redress said:

OK, you are new, so I will take it easy on you and explain this politely. Being gay is not an action. Being gay does not require sodomy. A large portion of gay people never engage in sodomy. Sodomy laws, if uniformly applied between straits and gays would be a total nonissue for gays. Don't suck a dick on base, you are probably fine. Article 125 has jack and **** to do with DADT. It's a complete and total red herring. A tiny percent of those discharged for DADT are charged with a violation of article 125.

Do you get the impression that article 125 is a bad argument? Good, because it is.

Click to expand...

who said anything about being gay being an action? not me, of course you can be gay without having sex. However, most sex acts between homosexuals would violate art 125. (hence my you can be gay but you can't have gay sex comment) I believe jerking off another person would not technically violate article 125.

sodomy according to article 125:

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

Also, article 125 is not limited to actions "on base". if you are in the military the UCMJ applies to your life 24/7, 365 a year.

so my statement is accurate.

until article 125 is amended or removed, gays might be able to serve, but they wouldn't be able to have gay sex as long as they were serving, without violating UCMJ.


is article 125 a stupid restriction? I think so. (except for the animal bit) In this case is art 125 a "bad arguement"? not at all because it accurately describes the current situation.


Perhaps if you had read more than that one single post, you would have realized I actually support gays in the military.

I was simply pointing out that even with DADT gone, gays could still be kicked out of the military based on violations of Article 125.

would a gay man have a valid complaint if when charged with 125 he claimed that hetero guys put their sex organs into the mouths/anuses of females? yes

would that change the fact that he violated art 125? no

would it be hypocritical for the military to kick out a gay person for 125 when they don't for heteros? yes

since when has life been fair? never

liblady said:

facts are our friends.

Click to expand...

yes they are...you should try using them some time. :lol:

MCS117 said:

Judges are not supposed to rule..... They are to interpret the laws, not enforce them or make new laws out of them....

Click to expand...

No new law was made in this case, and only current law was "enforced". She made her ruling based exactly on the law. If you feel her ruling, feel free to show me what about it you disagree with. I read it, nad while I am no legal expert, it certainly seemed reasonable and within the framework of the law.

You have read the ruling you are talking about, right?

Wiseone said:

The defense could appeal to the SCOTUS, but why would they because the judgement by the 9th Circuit has no grounds except as precedent for future cases. However it only relates to DADT and personally I don't believe the SCOTUS will ever touch DADT, generally they stay out of military affairs and let the Commander and Chief handle it.

Click to expand...

The 9th ruling can potentially have impact beyond being a framework for the next step of the appeals process. We will find out in a couple weeks when the courts decide what to do.

SCOTUS will almost certainly rule on DADT if it is still law by the time the process reaches that point, assuming it does. If they do not, it will simply mean the lower court ruling is the one in effect.

MCS117 said:

Still judges are supposed to interpret the consitutional laws into current laws that are to be passed, but instead activist judges use the social norm/status to current laws, which is unconstitutional. Unless the judge can prove that somewhere in the Constitution states the DADT or refers to the operation of the DADT is in conflict with a current Constitutional law, this is an activist judge's ruling that is biased.

Click to expand...

Please read the ruling. The case was all about constitutional law. You are showing a complete ignorance of what the ruling actual was, all the while declaring it flawed and activist. You have pretty much proved my point about activist judges being ones who rule in ways you don't like.

Councilman said:

i also think that once the Supreme Court rules on any subject it cn not be revisited in the future without a Constitutional Amendment.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While repeated rulings can lead to a principle's becoming settled law, such a constraint of requiring a constitutional amendment to overturn an initial Supreme Court decision is overly rigid. For example, under such a constraint, a landmark decision such as Brown v. Board of Education would not have been possible to reverse the Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal") decision.

OscarB63 said:

who said anything about being gay being an action? not me, of course you can be gay without having sex. However, most sex acts between homosexuals would violate art 125. (hence my you can be gay but you can't have gay sex comment) I believe jerking off another person would not technically violate article 125.

Click to expand...

There is a whole myriad of sexual acts that gays can and do engage in that would not be sodomy. It's also irrelevant, since to convict some one of sodomy, you have to, you know, catch them. It would also require a uniformity of application, which means that if gays can get discharged for getting a blowjob, so can straits. The reality is that article 125 enforcement in a post DADT world would be just like it is now for straits...basically unenforced.

sodomy according to article 125:

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

Also, article 125 is not limited to actions "on base". if you are in the military the UCMJ applies to your life 24/7, 365 a year.

so my statement is accurate.

Click to expand...

I know article 125, and you did not make an accurate statement. No one is discharged for getting a blowjob from their wife at home. This is the point you are missing.

until article 125 is amended or removed, gays might be able to serve, but they wouldn't be able to have gay sex as long as they were serving, without violating UCMJ.

Click to expand...

Actually, "gay sex" is not sodomy. "Gay sex" is any sex between partners of the same sex, which may or may not include sodomy. Please get that right. Further, as pointed out above, article 125 is not enforced for straits outside of onbase or duty areas, and even there sporadically. Gays could live with it being enforced for them exactly as it is for straits.

is article 125 a stupid restriction? I think so. (except for the animal bit) In this case is art 125 a "bad arguement"? not at all because it accurately describes the current situation.

Click to expand...

It is a bad argument because you do not understand how article 125 is used, and therefore make false assumptions. I care about this issue, and have spent a great deal of time researching it. Trust me on my knowledge of the issue.

Perhaps if you had read more than that one single post, you would have realized I actually support gays in the military.

Click to expand...

I correct innacuracies. Your statement was inaccurate. It does not matter your view of DADT, your statement was still inaccurate.

I was simply pointing out that even with DADT gone, gays could still be kicked out of the military based on violations of Article 125.

Click to expand...

And this is for the most part inaccurate. Are straits who give or receive oral or anal sex discharged much? So why would gays be?

would a gay man have a valid complaint if when charged with 125 he claimed that hetero guys put their sex organs into the mouths/anuses of females? yes

would that change the fact that he violated art 125? no

would it be hypocritical for the military to kick out a gay person for 125 when they don't for heteros? yes

since when has life been fair? never

Click to expand...

Again, if DADT is repealed, article 125 would have to be, by law, uniformly applied.

Redress said:

There is a whole myriad of sexual acts that gays can and do engage in that would not be sodomy. It's also irrelevant, since to convict some one of sodomy, you have to, you know, catch them. It would also require a uniformity of application, which means that if gays can get discharged for getting a blowjob, so can straits. The reality is that article 125 enforcement in a post DADT world would be just like it is now for straits...basically unenforced.



I know article 125, and you did not make an accurate statement. No one is discharged for getting a blowjob from their wife at home. This is the point you are missing.



Actually, "gay sex" is not sodomy. "Gay sex" is any sex between partners of the same sex, which may or may not include sodomy. Please get that right. Further, as pointed out above, article 125 is not enforced for straits outside of onbase or duty areas, and even there sporadically. Gays could live with it being enforced for them exactly as it is for straits.




It is a bad argument because you do not understand how article 125 is used, and therefore make false assumptions. I care about this issue, and have spent a great deal of time researching it. Trust me on my knowledge of the issue.



I correct innacuracies. Your statement was inaccurate. It does not matter your view of DADT, your statement was still inaccurate.



And this is for the most part inaccurate. Are straits who give or receive oral or anal sex discharged much? So why would gays be?



Again, if DADT is repealed, article 125 would have to be, by law, uniformly applied.

Click to expand...

yeah, in a perfect world. but we don't live in that world. Do you honestly believe that there is not "selective enforcement" of certain laws?

two cars driving at the exact same speed down the interstate. one has in state plates, the other out of state. which one do you think the trooper is going to pull over for the ticket?

I don't believe for a minute that there are not people who would prosecute gays under article 125 while turning a blind eye to hetero violators.

doesn't make me inaccurate...just a bit more cynical than you.

Redress said:

Please read the ruling. The case was all about constitutional law. You are showing a complete ignorance of what the ruling actual was, all the while declaring it flawed and activist. You have pretty much proved my point about activist judges being ones who rule in ways you don't like.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't work like that... This is a California court ruling, not the SCOTUS... What are we even debating this about... The DADT is on a federal level, not on a state level.... I don't even see why this is able to go through the state when this is very much a federal issue...

And violating the 1st amendment is a just semantics... It does not prohibit a person of speaking their mind, but there are disciplinary actions following it. It's the same case as getting a job, you can bad mouth the company all you want, but there are consequences to your actions.
And 5th amendment pertains to the courts, not any setting.... And it's not forcing a person to come out and say he's gay. So I don't really see how the 1st and 5th amendments are being violated....

Sorry double post.....

I'm actually for gays in the military as well, Oscar. As you know I did not always hold this opinion. I was against it at first. If memory serves, it was you that actually changed my mind on this issue. Being a military law enorcement officer, I would think that "in the real world" of military police enforcement, you'd have a leg up, on Ole Redress in terms of credibility?

Just sayin..


Tim-

cpwill said:

the Congress is free to set whatever entry barriers it wishes for military service. flat feet and athsma, for example.

what makes it unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

That is a RIDICULOUS comparison. Having flat feet and asthma are disabilities which do affect one's physical performance. Being gay is not a disability or condition which would affect one's own personal performance on a battle field. Seriously, did you just compare having asthma to being gay?

Hicup said:

I'm actually for gays in the military as well, Oscar. As you know I did not always hold this opinion. I was against it at first. If memory serves, it was you that actually changed my mind on this issue. Being a military law enorcement officer, I would think that "in the real world" of military police enforcement, you'd have a leg up, on Ole Redress in terms of credibility?

Just sayin..


Tim-

Click to expand...

actually, redress' assertions accurately express how things should be, if we lived in a perfect world free of prejudice. However, my comments more accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

OscarB63 said:

actually, redress' assertions accurately express how things should be, if we lived in a perfect world free of prejudice. However, my comments more accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

Click to expand...

Possession is 9/10th's of the law brother..


Tim-

OscarB63 said:

yeah, in a perfect world. but we don't live in that world. Do you honestly believe that there is not "selective enforcement" of certain laws?

two cars driving at the exact same speed down the interstate. one has in state plates, the other out of state. which one do you think the trooper is going to pull over for the ticket?

I don't believe for a minute that there are not people who would prosecute gays under article 125 while turning a blind eye to hetero violators.

doesn't make me inaccurate...just a bit more cynical than you.

Click to expand...

Hey guess what...we are 9 months into an evaluation as to how to handle idiots who would cause issues when DADT goes away. The whole problem with your argument it is imagines things without actually examining things. DADT is going away, probably next year, certainty within the next 2 or 3. Article 125 will not cause an issue with this.

Redress said:

Hey guess what...we are 9 months into an evaluation as to how to handle idiots who would cause issues when DADT goes away. The whole problem with your argument it is imagines things without actually examining things. DADT is going away, probably next year, certainty within the next 2 or 3. Article 125 will not cause an issue with this.

Click to expand...

and the problem with your arguement is that you totally ignore that fact that if article 125 is not abolished there will be those who will selectively enforce it to harrass and persecute gays. how is that NOT going to cause an issue?

MCS117 said:

No, it doesn't work like that... This is a California court ruling, not the SCOTUS... What are we even debating this about... The DADT is on a federal level, not on a state level.... I don't even see why this is able to go through the state when this is very much a federal issue...

And violating the 1st amendment is a just semantics... It does not prohibit a person of speaking their mind, but there are disciplinary actions following it. It's the same case as getting a job, you can bad mouth the company all you want, but there are consequences to your actions.
And 5th amendment pertains to the courts, not any setting.... And it's not forcing a person to come out and say he's gay. So I don't really see how the 1st and 5th amendments are being violated....

Click to expand...

Really, educate yourself...

United States District Court for the Central District of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States District Court for the Central District of California (in case citations, C.D. Cal.; commonly referred to as the CDCA or CACD) serves over 18 million people in southern and central California, making it the largest federal judicial district by population.

Click to expand...

It's a federal court not a state court. Learn about what you are talking about, it will save you much embarrassment.

OscarB63 said:

and the problem with your arguement is that you totally ignore that fact that if article 125 is not abolished there will be those who will selectively enforce it to harrass and persecute gays. how is that NOT going to cause an issue?

Click to expand...

In which case they are setting themselves up for punishment. Selective enforcement is not allowed. Article 125 is a red herring.

Councilman said:

I have no use what ever for activist Judges and i also think that once the Supreme Court rules on any subject it cn not be revisited in the future without a Constitutional Amendment. I am tired of new courts revisiting cases long since decided because some group or activist bunch of ninnies like the ACLU want to cause trouble and make the law in their own warped image.:rantoff:

Click to expand...

Dred Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia