DoD "ready" for DADT repeal

[ThreeHoler]

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James Roy issued the following statement today:

Today marks a significant milestone in the history of the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that the Department of Defense is ready to implement the repeal of the law commonly known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Over the past seven months, the Air Force has embarked on a vigorous effort to prepare for the repeal and has provided education and training materials to help all Airmen understand what is expected in a post-repeal environment. While Congressional language stipulates that repeal will not occur for another 60 days after certification by the DoD and President Obama, the Air Force stands ready to implement this change with the same unparalleled professionalism we have demonstrated with every transformation that we have undertaken in peace and war.

Perhaps we can finally stop with the waste of time CBTs and just get over the fact that people are people and all can serve their country.

[Shortbus]

https://www.npr.org/b...omecoming?sc=tw

They might be hot, tough to tell..

[arg]

Looks like two people at top left of the pic are checking it out.

[Pancake]

https://www.npr.org/b...omecoming?sc=tw

They might be hot, tough to tell...

[Prosuper]

why is this even news?

[Fud]

why is this even news?

2...this looks like a canned photo opportunity that was definitely staged beforehand. Glad they can be themselves finally, but this is not a big deal. Other than both of them being pretty attractive.

[ThreeHoler]

2...this looks like a canned photo opportunity that was definitely staged beforehand. Glad they can be themselves finally, but this is not a big deal. Other than both of them being pretty attractive.

"First kiss" is a longstanding tradition. One sailor is selected to kiss their wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband in front of the local news upon arrival at the home port. It has always been a canned photo op.

[Prosuper]

If a lottery, if two butch diesels or two effeminate gay men would have won it would the Navy invited the press to film this and would have this made the news and would anyone including gays would want to see two butt uglies kissing on the dock. Just another form of discrimination, if your a hot lipstick lesbian it's OK, but unattractive lets think about the good of the service. Wow!, there's gays in the Navy, I'm shocked (sarcasm). Can we just be military professionals without throwing our sexuality into your face?

[FlyingBull]

Can we just be military professionals without throwing our sexuality into your face?

So by this logic, a hetero couple kissing on the pier is also 'throwing sexuality into your face'.

[Boxhead]

So by this logic, a hetero couple kissing on the pier is also 'throwing sexuality into your face'.

Holy crap, that poor horse. It has been dead for awhile now...is yet another thread going to go down this road?

[HeloDude]

Found a few articles floating around about a Command Sergeant Major in the Army chewing out and then shoving a lesbian Captain at a military ball. Forgive the source, but I'm third-hand acquainted with someone in this unit, who confirms it more or less happened the way it's being reported...they need to crush the CSM.

Found an interesting comment below the article...

What this article does not tell and never once touches basis on is that the two female officers were more than just dancing. They were also kissing and groping each other on the dance floor while in Service uniform which does violate the Army's regulation on Public Displays of Affection. Of course I am not sticking up for the CSM because he does need to be properly dealt with. It just disturbs me when ALL the facts are not reported properly. When this happens, you definitely sway the opinion of your readers. But I guess that is what today's journalism is all about. Only report a few details and not all of it!

Just for the sake of the discussion, I'm curious to hear what the girls were doing while 'dancing'. If it in fact this above comment is true, ie that they were going at it while in uniform, well first, I need a picture/video (giggity), and second, I'd like to know why it's wrong for someone (the CC) to then tell them they need to cut it out? Would it be acceptable for a guy and a chick to be going at it while in uniform at an official ball with dates/civilians around? Or is this just part of the double-standard that has begun taking over our military?

As for the CSM, if it's true what he did, then yes, his ass needs to be disciplined to the max extent.

...edited to say thanks to Grind for the pics

Edited April 29, 2012 by HeloDude

[Guest]

Inappropriate physical contact is one thing. A kiss while dancing is not necessarily over the top although there is abviously a limit to what would be appropriate.

What everyone knows is absolutely wrong is the behavior of the CSM if what was quoted is true. It is no less wrong than a Lt doing the same thing to the Wg/CC and his wife.

[guineapigfury]

What everyone knows is absolutely wrong is the behavior of the CSM if what was quoted is true. It is no less wrong than a Lt doing the same thing to the Wg/CC and his wife.

Looks like a pretty cut and dried case of violating articles 89 and 90 of the UCMJ.

[Day Man]

Look at it this way: where do YOUR rights stop? Where does your right to liberty, or the pursuit of happiness stop? I'll give you a hint: it stops only when it infringes on another's right.

This is why I don't understand people's reluctance to allow gay marriage...

/thread derailment

[HeloDude]

This is why I don't understand people's reluctance to allow gay marriage...

/thread derailment

It is a thread derailment, but I'll bite...

As a Libertarin I could give 2 fvcks who people want to fvck. And as for gay marriage, I could care less if 2 dudes or 2 chicks want to marry and thus have a State recognized contract with each other that allows them to see each other in the hospital after an accident, file their taxes together, etc.

However, marriage--whether gay or straight is not a 'right' and thus not protected under The Constitution. Marriage is a contract set up by each individual State, so even though I personally don't care if there is gay marriage and would vote for it in a ballot measure, I respect each States' decision. The 10th Amendment allows everything not specifically defined to the federal government to be decided by individual States as long as it's not prohibited by The Consitution. And for all those that bring up "Equal Protection", it's just that--equal protection. So a gay guy can marry a chick in Oklahoma if they want, but I can't marry my brother in Oklahoma or Massachusets. There's also a reason I can't marry a 12 year old if she is willing to, or have multiple wives--equal protection doesn't apply there either unless a State allows it.

Back to the 2nd Amendment...pretty clear, especially when your read The Federalist Papers as to what the framers intended.

I think we should have a thread on Liberty, Rights, and The Constitution. This would be a perfect place to argue gay marriage...along with all the other crap the federal government is trying to pull on the States and its citizens.

[Vertigo]

However, marriage--whether gay or straight is not a 'right' and thus not protected under The Constitution. Marriage is a contract set up by each individual State, so even though I personally don't care if there is gay marriage and would vote for it in a ballot measure, I respect each States' decision. The 10th Amendment allows everything not specifically defined to the federal government to be decided by individual States as long as it's not prohibited by The Consitution. And for all those that bring up "Equal Protection", it's just that--equal protection. So a gay guy can marry a chick in Oklahoma if they want, but I can't marry my brother in Oklahoma or Massachusets. There's also a reason I can't marry a 12 year old if she is willing to, or have multiple wives--equal protection doesn't apply there either unless a State allows it.

I disagree. I think it does fall under the 14th- here's why:

The courts have ruled that under the Equal Protection Clause, laws that infringe a fundamental right on the basis of racial or ethnic identity have to meet a very high “strict scrutiny” standard that requires that they be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” government interest. Laws that make distinctions on the basis of gender are generally required to meet a weaker, but still stringent “exacting scrutiny” standard, that requires the government to show they serve an “important” government interest.

In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court ruled laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional. In his decision Justice Warren wrote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

One could easily apply gender in place of race in that ruling.

/thread derail

Edited December 22, 2012 by Vertigo

[HeloDude]

I disagree. I think it does fall under the 14th- here's why:

The courts have ruled that under the Equal Protection Clause, laws that infringe a fundamental right on the basis of racial or ethnic identity have to meet a very high “strict scrutiny” standard that requires that they be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” government interest. Laws that make distinctions on the basis of gender are generally required to meet a weaker, but still stringent “exacting scrutiny” standard, that requires the government to show they serve an “important” government interest.

In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court ruled laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional. In his decision Justice Warren wrote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

One could easily apply gender in place of race in that ruling.

/thread derail

So by that same argument, I can marry my brother? What about a willing 12 year old? There is nothing anatomically different than a white guy and a black guy...gender makes it a totally different ball game.

This is the problem that people have with Liberty...they want to take it one way, but not in other ways. I still believe the framers, and thus The Consitution means what it says in the 10th Amendment.

Someone a lot less lazier than me should put this in its own thread as its a worthy debate. I vote for Vertigo to do it.

[Longhorn15]

It is a thread derailment, but I'll bite...

As a Libertarin I could give 2 fvcks who people want to fvck. And as for gay marriage, I could care less if 2 dudes or 2 chicks want to marry and thus have a State recognized contract with each other that allows them to see each other in the hospital after an accident, file their taxes together, etc.

However, marriage--whether gay or straight is not a 'right' and thus not protected under The Constitution. Marriage is a contract set up by each individual State, so even though I personally don't care if there is gay marriage and would vote for it in a ballot measure, I respect each States' decision. The 10th Amendment allows everything not specifically defined to the federal government to be decided by individual States as long as it's not prohibited by The Consitution. And for all those that bring up "Equal Protection", it's just that--equal protection. So a gay guy can marry a chick in Oklahoma if they want, but I can't marry my brother in Oklahoma or Massachusets. There's also a reason I can't marry a 12 year old if she is willing to, or have multiple wives--equal protection doesn't apply there either unless a State allows it.

Back to the 2nd Amendment...pretty clear, especially when your read The Federalist Papers as to what the framers intended.

I think we should have a thread on Liberty, Rights, and The Constitution. This would be a perfect place to argue gay marriage...along with all the other crap the federal government is trying to pull on the States and its citizens.

My opposition to gay marriage being legislated is that it infringes on an institution that is a construct of the Church. If gays want the same rights, fine, have a civil union and you'll get all the benefits you're looking for. However, this isn't viewed as good enough, because liberals want the symbolic victory of it being called marriage. Much like Obamacare forcing religious organizations to offer contraception and abortion coverage, liberals have no problems zealously pushing the separation of Church and State, but also no problem with the State dictating to the Church. Typically hypocritical of this bunch.

WRT gun rights...I pledged to support and defend the constitution of the United States. Come for my guns, and we're going to have a gunfight.

Liberty: Don't infringe on anyone else's liberty and you can do what you want, no matter how much I might disagree with the morality/reasonableness of your actions.

[Vertigo]

So by that same argument, I can marry my brother? What about a willing 12 year old? There is nothing anatomically different than a white guy and a black guy...gender makes it a totally different ball game.

This is the problem that people have with Liberty...they want to take it one way, but not in other ways. I still believe the framers, and thus The Consitution means what it says in the 10th Amendment.

Someone a lot less lazier than me should put this in its own thread as its a worthy debate. I vote for Vertigo to do it.

If you want to marry your brother and he is an adult, go for it.

A 12 year old is not a legal adult and cannot enter into a legal contract, which a marriage is. - Very bad argument on your part there, might as well have been bringing up the stupid dog or toaster argument.

My opposition to gay marriage being legislated is that it infringes on an institution that is a construct of the Church. If gays want the same rights, fine, have a civil union and you'll get all the benefits you're looking for. However, this isn't viewed as good enough, because liberals want the symbolic victory of it being called marriage. Much like Obamacare forcing religious organizations to offer contraception and abortion coverage, liberals have no problems zealously pushing the separation of Church and State, but also no problem with the State dictating to the Church. Typically hypocritical of this bunch.

What if the church is ok with having a gay marriage? What then? Not ALL churches are opposed. So one church can now dictate to another church they can't have a gay marriage there?

How about we let the churches that allow gay marriages to do so and the churches opposed to opt out?

Who said anything about the State dictating to the church? The church doesn't own the word marriage. Marriage is a man made invention (much like religion in general) and preceded the church by thousands of years.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Vertigo

[HeloDude]

If you want to marry your brother and he is an adult, go for it.

A 12 year old is not a legal adult and cannot enter into a legal contract, which a marriage is. - Very bad argument on your part there, might as well have been bringing up the stupid dog or toaster argument.

So a 12 year old no longer has 'equal protection' of a 'right'? Or is it just that no State allows 12 year olds to marry? And your toaster/dog point is moronic be because a 12 year old has Rights, but a toaster and dog do not.

What it comes down to is that you're cool with States making laws you agree with it, but not cool with making laws you disagree with. Nothing under The Constituion says anything about age requirements when it comes into entering a contract.

[Vertigo]

So a 12 year old no longer has 'equal protection' of a 'right'? Or is it just that no State allows 12 year olds to marry? And your toaster/dog point is moronic be because a 12 year old has Rights, but a toaster and dog do not.

What it comes down to is that you're cool with States making laws you agree with it, but not cool with making laws you disagree with. Nothing under The Constituion says anything about age requirements when it comes into entering a contract.

What it comes down to is I'm not cool with states making laws that deny freedoms for one group but allows those freedoms to another group.

A 12 year old does have rights... but that doesn't make them a consenting adult, does it?

[HeloDude]

A 12 year old does have rights... but that doesn't make them a consenting adult, does it?

So what defines a human being as being able to be a 'consenting adult'? I've read the entire Consitution and I can't find it anywhere. Can it be that each individual State makes laws and regulations as to what age people can do what? For example, age to drive a car, drink alcohol, have consexual sex with a 30 year old--all set by each individual State. The only time the federal government can and should get involved is when it goes across State lines, federal installations, etc.

So again, I ask--if a State can set their own regulations on the age of when people can marry, why can't they regulate who can get married as it pertains to gender? Or how many people can marry at one time (I have a feeling you're cool with this one)?

As for the 14th Amendment, it makes sense to apply it to race as that is one of the main reasons is was written--one of the Reconstruction Amendments. If it applied to gender, then the country would not have needed the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.

I personally wish the country would use the Amendment process MUCH more often--that's what it's there for. People, mostly on the left, like arguing how The Constitution doesn't apply in certain areas because of changing times, changing cultures, etc....however, if what they wanted changed/added was that well supported, it would have very little trouble in getting an Amendment ratified. I guess it's easier to appoint activist judges who are liberal or conservative and then essentially give them the power of re-writing The Constitution. The problem with this is that it bites both sides in the ass sooner or later.

[bronxbomber252]

I say we squash the whole issue like this:

Take government out of marriage make marriage a strictly religious institution. Replace government involvement by offering the following. Civil unions for everyone, define it as a contract between two consenting adults that establishes all the legal rights, benefits, and draw backs that marriage currently has. Grandfather in all existing marriages. Now, the religious groups can define marriage however they want, and it is independent of legal rights and privileges.

[pawnman]

My opposition to gay marriage being legislated is that it infringes on an institution that is a construct of the Church. If gays want the same rights, fine, have a civil union and you'll get all the benefits you're looking for. However, this isn't viewed as good enough, because liberals want the symbolic victory of it being called marriage. Much like Obamacare forcing religious organizations to offer contraception and abortion coverage, liberals have no problems zealously pushing the separation of Church and State, but also no problem with the State dictating to the Church. Typically hypocritical of this bunch.

WRT gun rights...I pledged to support and defend the constitution of the United States. Come for my guns, and we're going to have a gunfight.

Liberty: Don't infringe on anyone else's liberty and you can do what you want, no matter how much I might disagree with the morality/reasonableness of your actions.

They want it to be called marriage because the federal, state, and local governments don't grant all the same rights and privileges to "civil union" couples as they do to married couples.

If marriage is only the province of the church, why does the state issue marriage certificates? There is no compulsion for a church to have a ceremony for a gay couple if they feel it isn't congruent with their teachings, just like an atheist will have a tough time getting a Catholic priest to administer the wedding vows.

[HeloDude]

Which makes your argument moot since NO state has the age of majority set below 18.

C'mon man--you can do better than that.

I gave you an example of how the 14th Amendment didn't work in getting women the right to vote (gender issue), but now you say it will work in forcing States to recognize gay marriage (another gender issue).

But going back to the 12-year old argument, just because it's not being contested in the courts doesn't mean the question isn't legitimate--why can a State set their own regulations as it pertains to age, but not gender when it comes to marriage?

Personally I don't understand why people would want to live in a State which didn't support at least a majority of their values. You wouldn't see me ever voluntarily choosing to live in California or Massachusetts...and at that same time I would never want to live in Mississippi or Arkansas. However, I would never want to limit any States' Rights.