Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

'Don't ask, don't tell' enforcement struck down by judge

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 5:36 p.m. ET
A California federal judge has issued an injunction stopping the military from enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in uniform.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled Tuesday that the policy "infringes the fundamental rights" of military service members and prospective service members and violates their rights to due process and freedom of speech.

Her ruling bars the Pentagon from enforcing or applying the policy and orders the military to immediately suspend and discontinue any investigations, discharges or other proceedings related to potential violations of the law.

To overturn the injunction, government lawyers would have to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and ask that the current policy be allowed to continue while the appellate judges consider the case.

The Pentagon plans to review the case and consult with the Justice Department, according to senior military officials. The Justice Department had no immediate comment, but the Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.

The case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a pro-gay rights group that includes current and former military members. The group argued during a two-week trial in July that the policy was unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Phillips agreed and last month granted a request for an injunction to stop the military from discharging gay service members while also allowing the government time to appeal the ruling.

The Justice Department argued the injunction should apply only to Log Cabin members, but Phillips ruled otherwise Tuesday.

The injunction "was the only reasonable solution," said Christian Berle, acting Executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. "These soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines sacrifice so much in defense of our nation and our Constitution."

"This decision is also a victory for all who support a strong national defense," Berle said. "No longer will our military be compelled to discharge service members with valuable skills and experience because of an archaic policy mandating irrational discrimination."

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization closely aligned with the Obama White House, said it would be a mistake for the Justice Department to appeal Phillips's decision.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents troops affected by the policy, said gays and lesbians serving in uniform "must proceed safely and should not come out at this time" since Tuesday's injunction could be reversed by the 9th Circuit. The group plans to closely monitor the status of several cases involving clients under investigation or facing discharges, it said.

The ruling comes as Congressional efforts to repeal the ban remain in doubt. A Senate test vote on a bill repealing the policy failed last month. It remains unclear whether Democrats will include the ban as part of an omnibus annual defense policy measure set for consideration during a lame-duck session after the midterm elections. But if it fails during the lame-duck, repeal could be difficult if Democrats lose control of the Senate to Republicans.

The injunction should not affect the Defense Department's ongoing study of how the military would repeal the ban, senior military officials said.

"Obviously, we'll watch with great interest to see how this develops," said one senior military official familiar with the study who was not authorized to speak publicly.

A final report is due to President Obama and senior military leaders by Dec. 1. Several moderate senators of both parties hope the Senate will wait to vote on repealing the ban until after the report is released.

If the Justice Department declines to appeal the ruling, the Defense Department would be required to issue instructions to military leaders on how to stop enforcing the policy, a senior military official said.

In a separate federal case closely watched by gay rights groups, the Justice Department announced Tuesday that it plans to appeal a decision ruling the federal ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. A Boston federal district court judge said in July that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act interfered with a state's right to define marriage. The case now moves to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Staff writer Greg Jaffe contributed to this report.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: GOP group fights to end 'don't ask, don't tell' (July 15)

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe  | October 12, 2010; 6:20 PM ET
Categories:  Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: USDA office to open again on Wednesday
Next: Who is Judge Virginia A. Phillips?

Comments

'Bout Damn Time....

Posted by: yeayea911 | October 12, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Why have and pay for a congress, the judges make all the laws anyway.

Posted by: hitaxpayer | October 12, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

It is about DANG time....

Posted by: yeayea911 | October 12, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

YES!

Posted by: Mea5 | October 12, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of how one feels about "don't ask, don't tell," all Americans should be concerned with the increasing tendency of unelected federal judges to determine public law by decree. The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic, not a judicial dictatorship.

Posted by: austinrl | October 12, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Why have and pay for a judicial branch if they can't interpret the constitutionality of laws?

Posted by: ICBomber | October 12, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Amazing..I have nothing against gays but if a male to a gay male is like a woman to a non gay male, then why not have men and women shower together and sleep in the same rooms. This act might cause alot of new problems that the civilian gay folks fighting for this cannot imagine. We are not talking about a corporation where the employees go home at the end of the day. Glad I am not in the military or in a position to make decisions without talking to the people (military) that will be impacted. I could just hear the comments to this. Oh well, an opinion among millions.

Posted by: lmatias | October 12, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Don't Ask & Don't Tell is merely a nasty way of persecuting someone you don't like without disclosing who you are or proving your case. Those who do it are called "latent homosexuals" by physiologists. It has little to do with sex, in fact, probably nothing. It has to do with power, the power to persecute (no, not a misspelled word, as seldom is it prosecuted).

Posted by: CliffVDY | October 12, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Great news. But folks, as a government lawyer myself, I have to tell you that it's not the President's fault or the Justice Dept.'s fault that it has to appeal even though their heart is not in it and they don't really want to. As a lawyer defending your client, you must show due diligence in defending your client. They took an oath to uphold and defend the law and unfortunately right now, DADT is the law. This is why the President tried to get congress to pass the repeal of the law before the ruling. However, I don't think the appeal will be rigorous. But, the Justice Dept. does have to go through the motions. This is not an attack on the Lesbian/Gay community by the President's administration.

Posted by: denise4925 | October 12, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse


It is a ploy so the appeal will have to be made to the 9th circuit court of appeals the most liberal in the nation.

The Supreme Court will wind up with this case.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 12, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

XTIANS ARE delusional, Military Fact The UCMJ (ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (JAG), IS NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE OK, JAGS CANNOT PRESIDE OVER THE CONSTITUTION), WHILE IN THE MILITARY ITS JAG COURT BUT ONCE OUT THE MILITARY THE CASE IS UP FOR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BY A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY TEST THE CASE, FOR THE UCMJ Gets its power from the US Constitution which also Govern the Commander and Chief all USC LAW ARE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND UCC ( UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE )REVIEW 28USC3002 (15) (A)(B)(C) (US CORPORATION) THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, NOT JAGS

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Ed, what do you mean.."The Pentagon and Justice Department had no immediate comment, but the Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision."????
I do not see Obama appealing this ruling.

Posted by: crrobin | October 12, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

oh yea austinrl, can't let judges determine when the US Constitution is violated. That would be outside their jurisdiction. NOT

Posted by: johng1 | October 12, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I agree with austinrl. Although the ends do justify the means, the actions of California judges are creating law and policy. What one judge thinks in California should not dictate the policy of the US Military; the judicial power is out of balance.

Posted by: HokiePokie | October 12, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

XTIANS ARE delusional, Military Fact The UCMJ (ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (JAG), IS NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE OK, JAGS CANNOT PRESIDE OVER THE CONSTITUTION), WHILE IN THE MILITARY ITS JAG COURT BUT ONCE OUT THE MILITARY THE CASE IS UP FOR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BY A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY TEST THE CASE, FOR THE UCMJ Gets its power from the US Constitution which also Govern the Commander and Chief all USC LAW ARE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND UCC ( UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE )REVIEW 28USC3002 (15) (A)(B)(C) (US CORPORATION) THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, NOT JAGS

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

It's about time after so many years of soldiers saving lives and making their lives Military while having to hide who they really are. Just think how many Law Makers are still in the closet. Now if gays can get equal rights that would really be good. I met a soldier who saved the life of two of his fellow soldiers and you can bet they didn't care he was gay it was their life he was saving. I can't wait to hear with Senator Graham has to say about this decision.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | October 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Austinrl: you are an idiot. The judge did not create a law by decree or any other method. Judges don't have that constitutional authority. Rather, she said an existing law was not constitutional. In other words, she said that Congress erred when it passed a law in 1993.

Posted by: johnnycomelately1 | October 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: hitaxpayer | October 12, 2010 3:59 PM, Why have and pay for a congress, the judges make all the laws anyway.
----------------------------
When they don't have the courage to do the right thing, the courts should. I wonder what your view is on recent civil right cases umm? You moniker belies that fact that you most likely take more that you give.

Posted by: mjcc1987 | October 12, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Surely the OBAMA administration will not appeal this order. It is one step closer to his promise.
Secondly to you you wingnuts yelling about the judges who made this decision, I'll bet if they had said it was constitutional you would be at the front of the line, saying or yelling WAY TO GO.
Thirdly - you want government to stay out of private lives, but you sure as hell support the government to control what goes on in the bedroom. Your values are so screwed up. Maybe you should move to UGANDA.

Posted by: zanemc | October 12, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that it is a "judicial dictatorship" when something is ruled on that one disagrees with, but not vice versa? Our "democratic republic" enacted health care reform into law, yet conservatives have been falling all over themselves to sue on the basis of the law being unconstitutional. The judiciary is supposed to look into the constitutionality of law. DADT violates peoples rights and judges on three separate occasions have now ruled accordingly.

Posted by: kago | October 12, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey Austin, they're unelected so that they remain unaffected by the various political and cultural whims of the moment. Furthermore, perhaps you should reread Article III of that document....hmm, what was the name of it again? Oh yea--the Constitution! Yea, check out Article III and then feel free to revisit your misguided remarks (see: "judicial dictatorship").

Posted by: MikeB85 | October 12, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

lET'S APPEAL HERE AND AT THE 9TH CIRCUIT AND GET TO THE SUPREME cOURT. GET IT OVER WITH.
DID ANYONE ASK THE ENLISTED MEN AND
WOMEN HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS??

Posted by: jhouston11 | October 12, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

austinrl wrote: " The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic, not a judicial dictatorship."
Unfortunately, it took a Federal Judge to "grow a set of balls" FOR the Congress, President, AND the military since they sat around and did nothing for so long. This situation has been studied endlessly and still you whine! It is time for those in the military who cannot accept the inevitable to stand down, retire, and... move aside!
The Senate, President, and military should be embarrassed to tears that 20 countries around the world can implement this procedure with no problem and yet the USA cannot get its head out of its a$$ and move ahead! There's something cock-eyed about this mess!

Posted by: dakotahgeo | October 12, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

From the Gospel of LUKE 17:verses 30, 34, Jesus said,

"In the day the Son of man is revealed, in that night there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall be taken, and the other left.",

So ok 2 GROWN MEN in 1 Bed {TOGETHER}? (what does this sound like?...AT THE RAPTURE SAME SEX "JESUS" says he takes one and leave the other in the same bed on that night ON THE RAPTURE, HMMMMM, ok?)

SEE LUKE 17:30-34, TWO GROWN MEN "LYING" IN BED TOGETHER AT NIGHT, HE TAKES ONE AND LEAVES THE OTHER...IT DID NOT BOTHER "JESUS"

Men are told to KISS Each other!!! ( BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT ) ROM16:16, 1Cor 16:20, 2Cor13:12, 1Thes5:26 1Pet5:14

MOST SAME SEXERS DETEST ANAL BUT PREFER GIVING ORAL SEX WITH SOME PEROXIDE MOUTH WASH ITS MORE SANITARY

Sodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler - not homosexuality.

Ezekiel (16:48-49) states: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Wisdom (19:13) states that the sin of Sodom was: "bitter hatred of strangers" and "making slaves of guests who were benefactors." Jesus said in Matthew (10:5-15) that the twelve angels sent to Sodom were sent with the following instructions: " Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah "

Further confirmation of this is found in Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; and Zephaniah 2:8-11. It is ironic that those who oppress gay people today are the true violators of the lesson of Sodom.

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Hip, hip, hooray!

Posted by: jmichael1 | October 12, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

austinrl, I am not at all concerned. The judges are doing EXACTLY what we pay them to do: protect us from governmental overreach and defend our constitutional rights. If congress passed a law that unfairly robbed you of your rights, your job or your property, you would go running to the courts for relief. Be glad we have judges who are willing to do the politically unpopular thing to protect citizens from getting kicked around--someday you may be very happy to have one rule in your favor...

Posted by: MarylandMD | October 12, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

What was wrong with the way the military was proceeding with a review of the policy?

Did the judge just decide it was going to stop regardless of what anyone who is effected by the policy thinks?

Posted by: blasmaic | October 12, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Just like the African Americans who fought so bravely in World War II for a nation that treated them as second class citizens, today's gay and lesbian soldiers are putting their lives on the line. It's hard to understand how any rational (the operative word) human being could want them expelled from the military, especially during a time of war, if they no longer hide their sexual orientation. Then again, it's been a long time since rationality has poked its head into the public debate on this issue, especially from the RepublicanT Party side of the aisle.

Posted by: dl49 | October 12, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

This is an absurd decision. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy.

Don't agree with me? Make your case in the elections and get the American people to change the law. But stop inventing new constitutional rights out of whole cloth and disenfranchising the electorate.

Posted by: InTheMiddle | October 12, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Another case of a liberal appointed judge from california making laws they have no background of information on, certainly no personal, in this case military background, and making a law instead of Congress going through their deliberations in their usual ramshackle way. Term limitations for appointed judges should go along with term limitations for Congress so we can get rid of the SOB's.

Posted by: GordonShumway | October 12, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

This is the Major problem with Judges in general - Judges are to Interpert the law NOT MAKE LAW - any Judge the makes law should be repremanded and lose the position as a judge - this is regardless of the issue

Posted by: JBond1 | October 12, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity. Civilization goes back more than 2 million years; 1,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews and 1,998,000 years pre-dating the myth of christianity which is a mere 2010 years old. In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity - a fantasy - which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world.

I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Onward christian soldiers; I think not. Such absolute drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross. One should appreciate each day of life and not expect another and if there is it might be given by a God of Love.

The Vatican basically supported Hitler and religion is responsible for more corruption and violence in the world. Pope Ratzinger was involved in the Nazi youth. The Pope with his blatant witchcraft related to the bible and its hateful beliefs; tries to rule with extreme prejudice against a world … that may fall victim to religions' absolute evil. Many theologians state quite correctly that the birth; crucifixion; resurrection and other elements of christianity actually didn’t even happen! The pope is running a bigger fraud than Madoff’s $50 billion ripoff. Today’s evangelical extremists are like the nazis who cast others into ovens & are actually supremacists - who practice their bogus hocus pocus - and are trying to suppress and deprive others of their happiness and their legal rights in an open and proud society. Bring back the period when they threw the christians to the lions.

Einstein stated in a letter recently auctioned that the bible was a collection of primitive legends. He said believing in God was childish and he as a Jew is no different than another person and are not chosen by God. Do you want to be lambs at the slaughter or be wise and reject religious cultist manipulation? Mean & nasty; run by evil and bogus religious cults from Rome or wherever. Is this the world you want? The pope talks about ending prejudice and hate; what a hypocrite! Religion is a crutch for the insecure. Appreciate every day and if there is no tomorrow; then know that you were fortunate to have lived on this earth!

This bogus religious filth should be banned. It exists as a tax exempt structure which discriminates against human rights. The pope, bishops and mormons are cult members promoting discrimination against minorities. That bogus black book called the bible should be banned. Religion and the churches should now be exposed as a bigoted structure that gets away with hate mongering. Love between two guys or girls existed long before these cults existed.

Posted by: MacDonald1 | October 12, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Obama not only has the EPA doing his dirty work,but he also has friends who wear black robes. While I don't agree with DADT, I think it should be left up to the men and women who have to share very limited space with others to decide whether gays should be able to declare their sexual preferences.

It's funny how we have all these comments applauding this decision,but not one of you have probably ever worn the uniform. You guys are truly comedians of the highest order. Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: mcap52 | October 12, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

IT IS GENETICS BEING RE-ENFORCED BY NATURE ie ESTROGEN IN FOOD/ WATER/ AIR/PLASTICS etc.

SIN INVOLVES A CHOICE, ESTROGEN IN THE FOOD -WATER-AIR SOURCES AND IN GENETICS IS NOT A CHOICE, ITS NOT A SIN OR "GOD" WOULD BE UNJUST IN THESE TWO MAIN AREAS ( FOOD/ GENES) :

GOOGLE/ YOUTUBE /Wikipedia the terms: "INTERSEX" AND "XXY /XXXY MALES " IT'S ALL SCIENTIFIC FACT, people ARE BORN with both fully, ENVIRONMENTAL ESTROGEN RE-ENFORCES IT
Complete AIS means that the person will look absolutely FEMALE OR MALE from the outside. However AIS is only one of about 75 KNOWN different intersex GENETIC conditions ,and 'INTERSEX/ XXY/ XXXY MALES" occurs in ALL RACES. (ADA) PROTECTS NORMAL HUMAN BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANTS

SEEING THAT SCIENCE AGAIN HAS CLEARED THE WAY THEN, THEREFORE RELIGIOUS/ POLITICAL AND OTHERS etc MAY BE LIABLE FOR THEIR INHUMANE HATE SPEECH THAT BOTH INSIGHT TERRORIST VIOLENCE & CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS , SEE THE (ADA) FED LAW & KKK CASE LAW PRECEDENCE, THE US PATRIOT ACT AND NATIONAL SECURITY ACT FOR TERRORISM AGAINST ANY US CITIZEN

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Amazing..I have nothing against gays but if a male to a gay male is like a woman to a non gay male, then why not have men and women shower together and sleep in the same rooms. This act might cause alot of new problems that the civilian gay folks fighting for this cannot imagine. We are not talking about a corporation where the employees go home at the end of the day. Glad I am not in the military or in a position to make decisions without talking to the people (military) that will be impacted. I could just hear the comments to this. Oh well, an opinion among millions.
****************************************
That kind of argument has a nice sheen of logic and reasonableness to it, but the experience of every democracy that allows gays to serve openly exposes it and similar arguments as BS.

Posted by: st50taw | October 12, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

All of you who are complaining about "activist judges" should retake an introduction to civics course. The judiciary is one of the four branches of the American government charged with assessing whether or not laws, bills, etc., are constitutional or legal. Judges do not pass laws; rather, they assay whether or not a law is constitutionally legal. One only needs to go back to the 1950s/60s during the Civil Rights Movement to understand the importance of the judiciary in the system of checks and balances.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 12, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree with austinrl. Although the ends do justify the means, the actions of California judges are creating law and policy. What one judge thinks in California should not dictate the policy of the US Military; the judicial power is out of balance.

Posted by: HokiePokie | October 12, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

*******************************************

Good God, they are federal judges, which means their judgments effect the nation as a whole, not just California. There was a federal question involved, which is why this court heard it in the first place. Also, judges interpret the law that's already in place, as it pertains to the facts of the case. In this case, the judge interpreted the Constitution to say that the law (DADT) was a violation of the plaintiff's rights to free speech and due process of law. Judges don't have authority to make law. However, if a law is made from the interpretation of a law as it applies to the Constitution, it's called a precedent and there are many in our nation's history. That's why we have the courts. It's why our system in the US is called Checks and Balances. The federal courts (including the SCOTUS) are there to check the laws made by the legislature as it applies to the Constitution. Seriously, people like you make a literacy and comprehension test as a requirement to vote, palatable.

Posted by: denise4925 | October 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

MacDonald1, right on about the god fallacy. But what does this have to do with DADT?

Posted by: johng1 | October 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

A federal judge from California. Figures!! Where was she 10 years ago?

Posted by: VaBroker | October 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Oops. I meant three branches of government, though some consider the press the Fourth Estate.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I applaud the ruling but question the legal basis for it. Joining the military necessarily means giving up certain rights taken for granted in the civilian world; for example, there is no right of dissent in a military organization (nor should there be).

However, having said that I think we need to discard archaic and bigoted notions about homosexuality. Being gay doesn't make one any less capable of firing a weapon or dropping a bomb.

It isn't being gay that undermines unit cohesion - it's being a coward; and from what I've heard and read many gays have served and continue to valiantly serve their country.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | October 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It is about time!
Equal Justice Under the Law

Posted by: kflet3 | October 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

ESTROGEN IS IN THE VEGAN FOOD SOURCE :SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUALITY ( HUMANE CIVILITY ) NOT JIM CROW BLACK CODES, THIS INEQUALITY ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO ALL EQUALITY EVERYWHERE para.MLK: CONDEMNING OTHER PEOPLE CHILDREN, ITS IN "GOD" FOODS IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ITS NATURAL BY"GOD" ESTROGEN FOOD SOURCE

THE US CONSTITUTION ART4 SEC2(1)THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, They are US CITIZENS OR NOT ? ,THERE ARE WANTING TO PROTECT OLD GLORY , 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C),

9th AMENDMENT: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE (ie ALL US CITIZENS)

You know, had a referendum on banning interracial marriages been put on the ballot down
South, up until about 20 years ago, it would have passed. Had civil rights been subject to a vote in those states, it would have also been voted down before about 1980.

matters of civil rights should never be put for a vote. If they were, as Prop 8 was, we might still have Jim Crow laws in the South, seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms, poll taxes, and a ban on inter-racial marriage, WOMEN RIGHT TO VOTE AND EQUAL PAY WAGES, "WOMEN EMANCIPATION ACT"

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Why did this take so long?

Posted by: lugalgazi | October 12, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So here's my analysis: what I see here is really nothing more than the fallout of our meddeling in Arizona, with a compounded affect that was brought on by our proposed acceptance of "Guest Worker" classifications in Utah, in order to further ensure that the rights of all others were protected. For it just seems to me that when everyone starts to protect everyone's rights, and rework their classification in order to support a compromise to ensure that protection is provided, then it seems here that everyone's rights, all of a sudden, get protected as a result. For once you start down this road, it's tough to stop. And I suspect that in a way, it's all kinda like eating potato chips. Anyway, that's the way I see it. How unforetunate.

Posted by: jralger | October 12, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

st50taw, no self-respecting gay man wants anywhere near you and your "precious" jewels. I LOVE that homophobic men think every gay man in uniform will want them as a partner. Dear God you flatter yourselves. And as for women in your showers, again you flatter yourself. Get over it. We are here, we have the numbers, and we are not about to go away. Check out your family tree, we live in the branches!

Posted by: Woodie731 | October 12, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Great1 Great! Great!

Posted by: tartbond | October 12, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

About TIME!

Glad America has joined the 21st Century.

As part of a long line of actively serving straight military, I'm glad we've finally ended this insanity and joined the rest of the free world!

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 12, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

In every war, from the Civil War, two world wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and in Afghanistan and Iraq, gay Americans have served their country and shed blood for their country. On 911 they perished at the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center, and one of the people who tried to wrestle the hijackers in the plane that went down over Pennsylvania was gay. From the beaches of Normandy to the hills of Saigon, to the ruins at Ground Zero and to streets of Baghdad the sacrifice gay members of the military silently made to their country lies hidden, except to their closest friends and family members.

Gay Americans are our sisters, brothers, friends, aunts, uncles, and neighbors. They are doctors, teachers, lawyers, judges, policemen, firemen, construction workers, chemists, accountants, athletes, and assembly line workers. They are and always have been willing to die on the battlefields our country fought on because they loved their country but it seems our country prefers to treat them as though they were dangerous aliens from another planet rather than see them as patriots who love their country who deserve to be treated just like we ourselves would like to be treated - with dignity and respect, not with hatred or discrimination. Is that too much to ask for?

Posted by: mjkoch* | October 12, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

...and the right goes wild!!!!!!!!

Posted by: danw1 | October 12, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Bravo Judge Phillips. I am a retired Navy Commander and gay man and combat pilot in the Vietnam War who lost his first partner during that war. My sexuality had no ill effect on my ability to my duty. I have been gay since I was 12 years old.

John Chase Commander USN RET.

Posted by: proctorjohn5268 | October 12, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

This is another indication that needed change is close by. These policies are violent in their own right, and the impact on military and others is compromised by limiting the rights of LGBT from serving.

I applaud the decision and pray that the Obama Administration will refuse to appeal the decision. It's time...and like other moments in time and history, this administration has an opportunity to move this country in a direction that this leads our deomcratic republic forward in justice and healing.

For all those who have read of the suicides and hate crimes of late targeted at gay people, it is clear that these policies of separation feed the sickness of hatred and homophobia in this society.

Given a chance to end it - it's time to end the divide and grow forward to what we have always been, a country working toward justice -- even with our differences.

Rev. Ray Bagnuolo, Minister
PC(USA)
Gay Member of the LGBT Community

Posted by: RayBagnuolo | October 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Many MANY apologies to st50taw! The homophobe to whom I should have addressed my comments was lmatias. Again, please accept my sincere apology.

Posted by: Woodie731 | October 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I know this makes no sense to the liberals here, but to allow gays openly in the close confines of combat units is a terrible misguided attempt at making things equal.

In units under fire, or having to go out on hazardous missions, trust is everything. In the tight and stressed combat units with gays and women and straights, relationships are almost certain to form. It is almost impossible to stop the forces of nature, of pheromones percolating among the young. Witness the pregnancies at West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, despite serious rules and grim repercussions. Urgent hormones don't care about rules, even punishment.

What happens when the Sergeant is secretly having trysts with the private? Does he not send out his lover on a patrol because of their relationship? Or does he do the opposite to prove he is not biased? And what do the other soldiers in the unit think?

What happens to the moral of stressed men apart from wives or girlfriends, having to shower together, worrying about whether another man is 'looking him over' -- whether real or not?

It is so easy to sit in courtrooms and shove ideals on people in circumstance where the ideals are impractical and dangerous.

Why not go a few steps further? Allow the hearing impaired to man sonar stations, and the sight impaired to fly carrier aircraft?

This is bad decision -- one that is going to hurt the morale of combat units already under tremendous pressure. And hence, will kill.

Posted by: JPMcC | October 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

THE UCMJ IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION, FOR IT ONCE ALLOWED SLAVERY, AND WOMEN TO BE PROPERTY IN MARRIAGE , AS WE KNOW THAT HAS CHANGED A LOT, THE UCMJ NOR DADT CAN NEVER OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, ITS A LIVING DOCUMENT , SO DOES DADT PRESSURES A DURESS ADMISSION??? ,YES IT DOES!!

ok, let's think about this sensibly. We want to win in the middle east. Only one western army has ever done that before. It was not the straight British, nor the straight Russians, but rather, it was Alexander and his band of Macedonians well, known to be SAME SEX. So if we want to win, we need to get those non-same sex guys out of there and send in the real army... the same sexers

You know, the Roman Empire made Christianity its state religion? And that after that homosexuality became illegal? And that after that they fell? XTIANS know nothing of history or English grammar. Maybe XTIANS shouldn't criticize others for their lack of English when XTIANS clearly haven't mastered it THEMSELVES

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous travesty. To legislate from the bench not only is an assault on the U.S. Constitution but also blatant power-grab by the courts... which was intended to enforce and interpret the intent of laws, not change them.

Posted by: ron12 | October 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Republicans brought the lawsuit.

A Democratic president representing a population traditionally discriminated against is appealing the decision.

We are now officially down the rabbit hole, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by: treetopflyer | October 12, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous travesty. To legislate from the bench not only is an assault on the U.S. Constitution but also blatant power-grab by the courts... which was intended to enforce and interpret the intent of laws, not change them.

Posted by: ron12
=======================
I'm curious - was Brown v. The Board of Education an example of 'legislating from the bench'? And how about Bush v. Gore?

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | October 12, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

GOOGLE" LIST OF COUNTRIES/ NATION THAT HAS HOMOSEXUAL/ BISEXUAL, [or] the US Military can Traffic (US CITIZENS) Same Sex Enlistees to Other ALLI Military Forces Instead as a TREATIES Agreement, TOO BUILD UP THEIR FORCES INSTEAD ,seeing That The Great Alexander Had World Conquering Success with Same Sex Armies , as well as The Powerful Roman Civilization that The US Benefits From To this Day

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Well said MidwaySailor76 @ October 12, 2010 4:30 PM!

Posted by: johng1 | October 12, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

virgina another POC.has no idea,and hates the military. decides for herself with absolutley no regard for the majority. disgusting

Posted by: pofinpa | October 12, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

JPMccC wrote: Why not go a few steps further? Allow the hearing impaired to man sonar stations, and the sight impaired to fly carrier aircraft?

We are talking about men and women who are qualified to do and are doing the jobs they were hired to do. Your analogy is an insult to our troops.

Posted by: jake14 | October 12, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Next:

Judge rules the military can only fire one bullet at a time.

Then, it must verify where the missile went... and apologize if it might have hit something.

Posted by: docwhocuts | October 12, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree. It is about time!

Posted by: peternerenstone | October 12, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous travesty. To legislate from the bench not only is an assault on the U.S. Constitution but also blatant power-grab by the courts... which was intended to enforce and interpret the intent of laws, not change them.

Posted by: ron12
------------------------------------------
Do you even know how the judiciary works? The courts do not legislate; rather, they assay whether or not a law is constitutional. As another poster opined, I'm beginning to think that before people can vote, they should have to take an exam in which they prove that they understand how our government works.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 12, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

FYI MILITARY BARRINGS THE JOB COMES FIRST ABOVE ALL SELF DISCIPLINE, IN THE MILITARY THE SHOWERS ARE NOT OPEN IN THE DORMS, EACH HAVE A LOCKING BOOTHS, THE MILITARY IS NOT LIKE JAIL OK, IN BASIC TRAINING TO MANY PEOPLE ARE AROUND , YOUR NOT ISOLATED, THE DORM GUARDS AND EVERYONE ELSE IS AROUND , AND THE CAMARAS ARE ALSO.

THE OPEN SHOWER BAY? TO MANY GO IN AND OUT IN THE 2HR YOUR GIVEN TO GET ONE,AND FYI THE POLICE DOES NOT ARREST SOMEONE FOR STARING AT SAME SEXERS IN PUBLIC SO DONT TRY TO CHANGE IT UP WHEN ITS YOU, ie YOU HAVE TO GET THINGS READY FOR THE NEXT DAY 10PM LIGHTS GO OUT IN BASIC UP AT 5AM DRESS IN 15MIN, ALL OF THIS IS PART OF THE UNIT BONDING JUST LIKE UNIFORMS AND BALD HEADS

AND ON OFF TIME TWO AT LEAST MARCH TOGETHER TOGO TO REC-CENTER AND OR BX, YOUR ORDERS FOR BOTH TECH SCHOOL AND YOU STATION HAS DORM ROOM WITH THE REST ROOM IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO DORM ROOMS, THE DOOR LOCK FROM THE INSIDE, THE DORM BLDG ARE CO-ED

FLAMING IN CIVVIES ARE AGAINST THE REG ANYWAY, CONDUCT IS ALWAYS WATCHED , ie NO PDA (PUBLIC DISPLAY OF AFFECTION UCMJ) AND I AGREE WITH THE CONDUCT CODE, BUT NOT KICK OUTS PERIOD,

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like a Catch-22. If the en banc appeals court rules that the Log Cabin Republicans are the only ones entitled to this protection, then how do gays and lesbians in the military, who are not permitted to declare their interest openly, gain standing?

Posted by: patr2 | October 12, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

When you pain is being gay
And you're hurt, ashamed or confused
And wonder if you should suffer another day.

If often you feel self-conscious with others around
And you hate to face the world but can't hibernate
So again you get up and get out.

When confidences are betrayed
And you want to talk but don't know who to trust
And you wonder if you'd been cursed in your mother's womb.

When such thoughts you can't stop or interrupt
And your head feels like at any minute it will explode
From endless thinking, anxieties fears and doubts.

"Turn Inside With Loving Thoughts For Your Best Friend -You".

When you get to that point; and hopefully you'll remember before you get so low
Know that death won't end your eternal energy, you'll only be transformed
So always seek to change your mood/vibration first, to recreate your state.

We're constantly creating and recreating in repeated lifetimes
Who we are now, is based on causes from this life and before
So with corresponding thoughts, become who you'd prefer.

I don't mean from Gay to straight -since being gay is a lesser problem
Than Christians who initiate and perpetrate hate in the name of God
Falsely believing they're on some moral high ground for God's Will

You have a right to live congruent to your inner drives
Christians or other don't have the final say to your life
They're unsure of their own salvation, so want you to join their fear.

But its you who own your life -not they
So don't let them drive you to cower in shame and doubt.
Its their hate that should be deemed ungodly, not you, being who you are.

Think positive and empowered until your vibes are elevated
Just fake it, until enough repetitions make it real
Don't intellectualize just now, visualize it into feeling real.

Close your eyes and breathe in the goals you clarified in your mind
One where God guarantees more than just His Chosen Few
And one that honors the inalienable orientation with which you were born.

You need no one's approval to honor your birth orientation
You took no conscious action to become Gay
So take back the power you relinquished, when better you didn't know.

Switch from thoughts of self-condemnation and fear to ones of self love
Say "I love you!" to yourself often and mean it and feel it
Which will keep your soul energized and purified, instead of polluted from fear.
Yesterday, 4:48:44 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

Posted by: ripuree | October 12, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't deny that people in the military never think about sex, however if a gay couple is engaging in sex openly and are faced with a life and death situation of a straight person or their "lover" which will stand the better chance of being taken out of dangers way? Consider the daily news articles that report murders over someone infringing on another persons lover! Military fighting forces are being paid to fight and win not have their minds full of perverted sexual practices! A young man just hung himself after being outed having a sexual encounter with another pervert! You will object to the word "pervert", however homosexuality is not normal sex and will not produce offspring as was the designed purpose of male and female gender to procreate! Humanity has bastardized this plan for the purposes of selfish pleasure!

Posted by: TORRRR | October 12, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JPMcC: Are your comments based on experience? Because at last count there were 24 nations that allow gays to openly serve, including our staunch ally Israel; and no one I know thinks the Israeli Army has a morale or behavior problem because of its gay soldiers.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | October 12, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

When you pain is being gay
And you're hurt, ashamed or confused
And wonder if you should suffer another day.

If often you feel self-conscious with others around
And you hate to face the world but can't hibernate
So again you get up and get out.

When confidences are betrayed
And you want to talk but don't know who to trust
And you wonder if you'd been cursed in your mother's womb.

When such thoughts you can't stop or interrupt
And your head feels like at any minute it will explode
From endless thinking, anxieties fears and doubts.

"Turn Inside With Loving Thoughts For Your Best Friend -You".

When you get to that point; and hopefully you'll remember before you get so low
Know that death won't end your eternal energy, you'll only be transformed
So always seek to change your mood/vibration first, to recreate your state.

We're constantly creating and recreating in repeated lifetimes
Who we are now, is based on causes from this life and before
So with corresponding thoughts, become who you'd prefer.

I don't mean from Gay to straight -since being gay is a lesser problem
Than Christians who initiate and perpetrate hate in the name of God
Falsely believing they're on some moral high ground for God's Will

You have a right to live congruent to your inner drives
Christians or other don't have the final say to your life
They're unsure of their own salvation, so want you to join their fear.

But its you who own your life -not they
So don't let them drive you to cower in shame and doubt.
Its their hate that should be deemed ungodly, not you, being who you are.

Think positive and empowered until your vibes are elevated
Just fake it, until enough repetitions make it real
Don't intellectualize just now, visualize it into feeling real.

Close your eyes and breathe in the goals you clarified in your mind
One where God guarantees more than just His Chosen Few
And one that honors the inalienable orientation with which you were born.

You need no one's approval to honor your birth orientation
You took no conscious action to become Gay
So take back the power you relinquished, when better you didn't know.

Switch from thoughts of self-condemnation and fear to ones of self love
Say "I love you!" to yourself often and mean it and feel it
Which will keep your soul energized and purified, instead of polluted from fear.

Posted by: ripuree | October 12, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Every Word Was Created By Man, Including "God" God Must Therefore Evolve

If you believe in the Deity God, wouldn't He have created you Gay?
And did He give you a Gay or Straight choice?
So why would He make you Gay, only to sadistically condemn you to Hell?

God has been a changing concept from our earliest ancestors
They conjured-up their best at differing junctures of the human journey
And now its up to us, to elevate that concept from nonsense to sense.

Trust the feelings of your gut more than anything or anyone else
Know that what feels good to you is good for you
And I don't mean a temporary fix from illegal stuff.

It would be nice if those you care about would accept you "as is"
But they may not love themselves either -therefore can't love anyone else
So don't take rejection as a flaw they see in you.

You know that you're a swell guy or gal
So it's their loss to not get to know the current you
Nor the greater masterpiece you've chosen to become.

I am now a 55 year, daily improving human masterpiece
Who at the beginning of 2010 became truly happy and no longer sad
My dilemma was not Gay, but still I was always thinking to end my life.

I knew well how to resolve everyone's problems
I was a People Pleaser loving from Outside In -instead of Inside Out
Being everyone's keeper, when I needed to be keeper of myself.

Today I love life and no longer miss any love or approval I don't have
I no longer cower in fear and shame or relentless anxiety
Happiness is now my fundamental life-state regardless of what prevails.

So, if you're sure you're gay; No! you're not ungodly, disgusting and perverse
You're different! the way you were meant to be
And its now up to you, to not let others kill your Spirit, before you live.

Love and Care For Yourself From Inside Out Everyday

Good health will also improve your mood
Drink plenty of plain water, and more real than processed foods
Cut out sugary food as much as possible, and daily take deep cleansing breaths.

Walk with head and shoulders high
Expect happy outcomes, while daily breathing away fear and despair
And be sure to daily eliminate body waste.

Let what others think about you be their business, and no longer yours
And switch to thinking: I am happy, safe and loved instead of doom and gloom
Until a "critical mass" of happiness, become your foundation too!

Posted by: ripuree | October 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Amazing..I have nothing against gays but if a male to a gay male is like a woman to a non gay male,
---

Well, some males are simply but* *gly, and NO ONE will give them a second look, gay or not.

So, all you ugly men -- yer safe. From everyone.

All kidding aside, sexual attraction is a little more complex than what you cite, and not every human is exploitive, and your comment indicates you see attraction as exploitation.

And that's kind of sad as well as sick.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | October 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Next:

So what if you cannot finish the obstacle course.......

off to officer training with you.

special soldiers deserve special attention.

Posted by: docwhocuts | October 12, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I agree with austinrl. Although the ends do justify the means, the actions of California judges are creating law and policy. What one judge thinks in California should not dictate the policy of the US Military; the judicial power is out of balance.

Posted by: HokiePokie

=========================
I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous. We wouldn't last a year if each member of Congress, all 535 of them, could act like independent satraps like the 3,168 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,645 district court judges.

Imagine each Congress Rep could pass any bill he or she wanted, all on their own!

When we set up an independent judiciary, with a couple dozen judges net inc Supreme Court justices "riding to handle Circuit Court deliberations" - we never intended for todays situation - for 3,168 people to have the autonomous power to jerk any decision by Congress, the military, or the President around to constrain them in favor of a lone wolf judge's agenda.

The activists on the judiciary are determined to shove gay marriage, gays in the military down the throats of the American public - no matter what they want, no matter what the elected officials or appointees of the Executive think should happen.

It all rests on the very thin thread of each of us, no matter what a judge's personal agenda - accepting judges as Gods over us all. When the public or the other branches finally stand up to the "lone wolves" of the judiciary - is when this all ends. And the Constitutional System is brought into balance again.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | October 12, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

OLD JIM CROW MUST GO

A JAG IS JUST THAT , A JUDGE ADVOCATE ie HE/SHE ACTS IN PLACE OF A JUDGE, CANT BE FLYING JUDGES TO OTHER COUNTRIES ALL DAY $$$$, BUT A JAG CANNOT PRESIDE OVER THE CONSTITUTION, ONLY A FEDERAL JUDGE WITH JURISDICTION CAN DO THAT, THE JUDGE A GWB APPOINTEE HAD SUCH JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASE

Sources for this topic are the UCMJ itself (also found at 10 USC 801), as well as ex parte Quirin (317 US 1 [1942]) and the Government Printing Office's commentaries on Article 1 of the Constitution. Sources for contemporary topics include the web sites for CNN and The New York Times.

THE CHAIN ON COMMAND (1) THE US CONSTITUTION, (2) THE PREZ, (3) UCMJ AS DRAFTED BY CONGRESS (4) THE 4 BRANCHES ie ARMY(AIR FORCE)/ NAVY (MARINES) REGULATIONS

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

About time for sure...

It's 2010, we have a constitution that guarantees freedom of sexual preference, but still we waste time and effort debating this subject. And this is just one of many things that Republican's and right wingers would have focus on instead of the real problems we face...

As long as no one is hurting anyone else, as long no one is being forced to do something they don't want to it should be legal. Just think of all the illegal things that fall into this category that could be legal.

We need to vote in leaders and reward people for being effective and wise with our tax dollars, we don't need saints in office as the Republicans try to emphasize and have us focus on (even thought history has shown that they are the most hypocritical bunch)


Posted by: JJH1 | October 12, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

To those with ruffled feathers here: It's not legistlating from the bench. It's the bench determining the constitutionality of a law. Start your argument from that point or stay mute. The legislating from the bench argument has been debunked and many of us are tiring of having to re-bunk the same argument on a daily basis.

Posted by: Rounds77 | October 12, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COVERS BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANT WITH REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS MUST SHOW THEY CAN DO THE JOB, THAT ALSO IS WHAT BASIC TRAINING IS FOR, A LOT OF HETERALS GET FLUSHED OUT FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PHYSICAL DEMANDS, ALSO MORE THAT SAME SEXERS

IN CONTRACT LAW THE CONSTITUTION OVERRIDES IT, NO CONTRACT ISSUED CAN BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THAT PART DADT UCMJ IS IN CONFLICT NOW WITH THE LAW JUST AS SLAVERY AND WOMAN SUFFRAGE ONCE WAS LEGAL THEN BECAME IN CONFLICT WITH IT, ( THE US CONSTITUTION )

I believe in Humane Civility like xtians supposed to ,IF YOU DONT PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS , YOURS WILL BE NEXT , 1 BY 1 THEN THE DARKNESS BITES THEM, AS IT WAS SAID IN LORD OF THE RINGS, THAT WAS A WISE SAYING OR WARNING

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Next...

so what if you shoot right handed, but are left eyed....

no discriminating... off to scout sniper school with you.

Posted by: docwhocuts | October 12, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Why have and pay for a congress, the judges make all the laws anyway.

Posted by: hitaxpayer

_________________________________________________________________________________________

It starts with the Supreme Count and the activist GOP members. They have no problem striking down 100 year old precedents. Especially when it comes to anonymous corporate campaign donations to the GOP. I never knew a corporation was a citizen entitled to the same rights as other citizens. Does a corporation have the right to vote?

Posted by: edanddot | October 12, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

It's only right to allow gays the same opportunity to go out innocent-Muslim-killing
- for the benefit of rich people - as the rest of us have.

But, just imagine what happens to a unit of 30, when all of a sudden,
6 or 7 men start vogueing like Sher and Richard Simmons in the barracks,
or when one of them goes, "he's cute"... talking about a "terrorist"
peasant in custody without charges.!

Posted by: jewishmother | October 12, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Next:

so what if you hyperventilate uncontrollable when you hit 60 degree water....

no discriminating.... off to SEAL training with you

Posted by: docwhocuts | October 12, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like a Catch-22. If the en banc appeals court rules that the Log Cabin Republicans are the only ones entitled to this protection, then how do gays and lesbians in the military, who are not permitted to declare their interest openly, gain standing?

Posted by: patr2 | October 12, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

FYI THE JUDGE IS A GOP GWBUSH APPOINTEE OK

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

THE UCMJ, IT WAS ONE TIME ANTI-INTEGRATION AND ANTI-WOMEN SERVING TOO, JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION WAS ONCE FOR SLAVERY THAT THE CHURCH STARTED, BY THE WAY GOOGLE: "CHURCH INVOLVEMENT IN THE US AND EUROPEAN TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE", YOU SEE THE CHURCHES HAD INVESTMENTS IN IT AND PROFITS THAT IT CONTINUE, AS THE GOOGLE SEARCH WILL SHOW, THE CHURCH WAS RELUCTANT TO STOP IT'S PARTICIPATION IN IT.

The Constitutional Topics pages at the US Constitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Military Justice. Military justice is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but can be found in Article 1, Section 8 (power to define penalties for piracy and felonies on the high seas and for violations of the law of nations, power to declare war, power to raise armies and navies) and in Article 2, Section 2 (president is commander in chief of the military). The Topic Page for Martial Law may also be of interest.

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Stupid judge imagining she's in charge of the military and can make all the rules.

The Constitution is very specific in this matter.

We need to have this ol'gal IMPEACHED, removed from office, and flensed in the next session of Congress.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 12, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

So, for 200 years, the military regularly dismissed homosexuals from military service regardless of whether those service members revelaed their homosexuality. For 17 years, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy was used by the military. Now, one federal judge in California is saying that, for all this time, the Constitution has prohibited these practices. Whether you like the outcome or not, it is this sort of judicial activism that is scary.

Posted by: GSS1 | October 12, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is going to happen here until the Administration reviews the DOD study.

People think that this is just a switch we can turn on, it's not, it's a bureaucratic mess from a administrative (gay marriage?) and training standpoint.

I see uncanny parallels to the recent campus problems with respect to orientation and how the military is going to have to accommodate sexual orientation, openly. There will be lots of training and legal proceedings for people who do not respect this lifestyle.


Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"all Americans should be concerned with the increasing tendency of unelected federal judges to determine public law by decree"

---------------

The same sober warning issued whenever one doesn't agree with the ruling.

We have 3 branches of government, so one can right the wrong of the other 2.

Posted by: tjconnor | October 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"all Americans should be concerned with the increasing tendency of unelected federal judges to determine public law by decree"

---------------

The same sober warning issued whenever one doesn't agree with the ruling.

We have 3 branches of government, so one can right the wrong of the other 2.

Posted by: tjconnor | October 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

So what if you cannot tolerate small spaces.

So what if you get depressed without sunlight....

no discriminating... off to submariners school

Posted by: docwhocuts | October 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

so, you're 6 feet 4inches....

cannot fit into an f-18....

no discriminating... all f-18s must be refit to accommodate tall people.

Posted by: docwhocuts | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

GOOGLE/ WIKIPEDIA: KING JAMES BIBLE GAY......YES HE WAS A BISEXUAL HYPOCRITE....REMEMBER THAT[ EVERY TIME XTIANS THUMP THEIR BIBLE THE KJV, MORE PEOPLE ARE NOW AWARE OF THIS FACT ABOUT KJV LIFE (OH ITS ON IN THE BLOG WARS)

THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON'T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTU TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN'T BE COPY RIGHTED

GOOGLE: NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's next best chance to stand up to the military. There is no law that requires an appeal, especially of such a patently unfiar statute. The most important function of the Federal judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and Amendments in a modern context. Thus we have a Supreme Court that permits covert political contributions and extended the right to bear arms explicitly from the original "right to raise militias" to the population in general. Let this outmoded and unnecessary law die a natural death.

Posted by: drbillboston | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Log Cabin Republicans!

Posted by: johng1 | October 12, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Stupid judge imagining she's in charge of the military and can make all the rules.

The Constitution is very specific in this matter.

We need to have this ol'gal IMPEACHED, removed from office, and flensed in the next session of Congress.

Posted by: muawiyah
----------------------------------------
To which section of the Constitution are you referring?

Posted by: binaryboy | October 12, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

What's next month's election for?

Posted by: JAH3 | October 12, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

just like the movies say, least thats what this dood was saying on digg.com

Posted by: hell047 | October 12, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Dakotahego ~ Regarding your statement that "Sodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler - not homosexuality" ~ it isn't even about MEN.

Lot is an object of derisive humor throughout the core story which i actually quite feminist in its outlook.

It starts with the need of a woman to find husbands for her daughters, so bowing to her husband's will in the matter (a mistake if you ask me) they abandon their herds (presumably reindeer because you can do that with them, but not goats or sheep 'cause they won't take care of themselves) and go to the nearest towns ~ Sodom and Gomorrah.

Well, wouldn't you know it, ol'doufous Lot takes her to the one place where all the men are into each other ~ not women at all.

To kind of telegraph the punchline, angelic beings visit Lot, and he ends up enticing the townsmen with his daughters so they'll leave the angelic beings alone, all to no avail.

The most ancient versions of the tale (about 7,800 years old on ideographs carved into stones in the Kola peninsula) has the woman turning into a stone for having failed to find husbands.

But, that's not enough. The husband ends up in the sack with the daughters!

Hospitality isn't part of this story ~ it's about a mother's obligations for her daughters and their need to propagate by means other than with their fathers.

The homosexuality is a laugh line! And one God? This storynow has only one God! When it starts out it has the FOUR household goddesses involved.

The original version wasn't much improved by the Hebrews when they first thought to lift it from the Sumerian nomads who'd gotten it from the reindeer hunters in the far North.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 12, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

So if these churches are using a "literal" interpretation of the bible are they also OK with slavery?
Exodus 21:7-11
Ephesians 6:5
Exodus 21:20-2
Luke 12:47-48

FYI A LOT SAME SEXERS AND BISEXUALS BOTH HAVE BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN OK (AKIN/ RICKY MARTIN/ CHENEYS DAUGHTER exp) THEIR ARE MANY MORE ,INDIA HINDI ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LEAST ONE CHILD THEN LIVE THEIR LIFE

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"Sodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler - not homosexuality" ~ it isn't even about MEN. lol!

Posted by: hell047 | October 12, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

So, for 200 years, the military regularly dismissed homosexuals from military service regardless of whether those service members revelaed their homosexuality. For 17 years, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy was used by the military. Now, one federal judge in California is saying that, for all this time, the Constitution has prohibited these practices. Whether you like the outcome or not, it is this sort of judicial activism that is scary.

Posted by: GSS1
----------------------------------------
What do you mean by judicial activism? It was the judge's responsibility to assess whether or not DADT was constitutional. That's her role as a federal judge. Just because the statute was enforced for seventeen years doesn't mean it was legal. It took that long for a group to challenge it because there weren't enough legal precedents that would make a repeal likely. I'm sick of people calling judges activists when they are just doing their jobs! If you don't like the ruling, say so. If you think the ruling stands on shaky ground, explain why. Just don't ape this pathetically transparent rhetoric of the radical right when a ruling doesn't go its way.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 12, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

binaryboy ~ in answer to your question, check out Section 8.

Says Congress makes all the rules.

The CIC simply moves them around, but Congress makes the rules.

The courts aren't in this part.

Like I said, this woman needs flensed ~ too much fat in her head.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 12, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Uh, don't get too excited...
Federal judges do not have jurisdiction over the military law, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. If that were the case fat people would be able to serve, disabled people would be able to serve, mentally ill people would be able to serve, etc, etc, etc. The only body that can change the UCMJ is Congress, and in 3 weeks there is zero chance that will happen...

Posted by: civilemik | October 12, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

hell047 ~ most folks are so in awe of the place of the Bible when it comes to telling ancient stories (presumably inspired by God Himself) they find it almost impossible to believe that any of them stories ~ e.g. the quite obscure reference to Lot's Wife ~ have a provable presence thousands of years before the Hebrews came to be.

The homosexuality in Lot's Wife and her search for husbands for her daughters is just part of the schtick of telling a tale ~ and the only way you can grasp the magnitude and integrity of that tale is to accept that it is about a MOTHER and her DAUGHTERS, not about the traveling clown show of a husband she's saddled with.

Obviously her own mother screwed up!

Posted by: muawiyah | October 12, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

ron12.....Methinks you are intent on getting your constitutional education through UOF (university of fox news). Trust me, once you receive your degree, no reputable workplace will hire you.

Posted by: david865 | October 12, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

denise4925 - "...Great news. But folks, as a government lawyer myself, I have to tell you that it's not the President's fault or the Justice Dept.'s fault..."
---------------
Read the transcripts from the Nuremberg trials. Just following orders; it was the law; not my fault, yada yada yada. You have no standing. How dare you wiggle out of your responsiblities, that is cowardace. Stand up and be honest and say you hate gays 'cause god told you so. Lawyers have no shame, none at all.

Posted by: mjcc1987 | October 12, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The military of this great nation does not serve under the Constitution.

It serves under the UCMJ.

Posted by: jjcrocket14 | October 12, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Just as long as they provide separate housing to those members of the military who prefer not to room with someone same sex minded, any more than they would require a straight woman to share regular quarters with a straight man. There is such a thing as modesty left in this world, despite all the g-string grinding parades.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | October 12, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

shaiarra ~ you'll find a lot of guys have a definite flight/fight response (which may present itself as turgidity) when they realize the folks in the white coats want to play with their special equipment.

Your (obviously gay) experimenters are lucky they escaped with their lives when they went to hook up the meters eh!

Posted by: muawiyah | October 12, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The military of this great nation does not serve under the Constitution.

It serves under the UCMJ.

Posted by: jjcrocket14
__________________________________________

Actually UCMJ has absolutely no say in DADT since it is deemed a civil rights issue, which is still regulated by the federal courts system, even though it deals with the military. UCMJ have their own rules for behavior and have jurisdiction only over those rules and regulations. In all other cases, all military personnel is still ruled by the three federal branches.

Posted by: DCProgressive | October 12, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama appeal? This is why Obama is losing the election in November. He always comes out on the wrong end of things.

For years Congress has been too dysfunctional to operate the country. And no changes in this are expected until we have a viable thrid party.

Obama should support the courts decision.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 12, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Judge: Unconstitutional discrimination is unconstitutional. Stop it now.

Homophobes: B...b...but our soldiers might catch teh ghey. Who cares what that mean old Constitution says?

And there's your executive summary. Have a great evening!

Posted by: bigbrother1 | October 12, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

What do you mean by judicial activism? It was the judge's responsibility to assess whether or not DADT was constitutional. That's her role as a federal judge. Just because the statute was enforced for seventeen years doesn't mean it was legal. It took that long for a group to challenge it because there weren't enough legal precedents that would make a repeal likely. I'm sick of people calling judges activists when they are just doing their jobs! If you don't like the ruling, say so. If you think the ruling stands on shaky ground, explain why. Just don't ape this pathetically transparent rhetoric of the radical right when a ruling doesn't go its way.

Posted by: binaryboy
---------------
Hey, I agree completely that the judge should do her job! She should, and did, decide the constitutionality of the issue presented to her. The issue is not whether she did her job, but whether she did it correctly (and also how she is not answerable for doing her job well, as she holds a lifetime appointment).

My premise is that one of the guiding principles for all judges should be consistency and stare decisis (the idea that settled law is worthy of deference). Feel free to disagree with that premise if you want.

The law on the right of the government to restrict homosexuals in the military has been settled for a very, very long time. The Constitution has not changed in that time, as it relates to the question presented. I think even the Log Cabin Republican's conceeded as much in their briefs. Their argument, which won the day, was that the Constitution should be interpreted, in light of modern thinking, to encompass their point of view. The judge bought that argument.

I think the argument is specious for all the reasons expoused by originalist interpreters of the Constitution. The way to change the long-standing constitutionality of an activity is not through fiat, but through a change in the Constitution or, in the very least, the law.

Just my 2-cents.

Posted by: GSS1 | October 12, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm really impressed by how little some people here know about the was the judicial branch works.

Here's a question, by not allowing gays to serve, you are obviously discriminating against them. But by allowing them to serve, who is discriminated against? Nobody.

Allowing homosexuals to serve doesn't interfere with anyone's rights. But blocking them does. It's really pretty straight forward.

Posted by: shadow27 | October 12, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

All military courts are subservient to the US Supreme Court. Federal judges have a lot of power, and for now, DADT is dead as a door nail. If Obama does not appeal, DADT is history.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | October 12, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

All military courts are subservient to the US Supreme Court. Federal judges have a lot of power, and for now, DADT is dead as a door nail. If Obama does not appeal, DADT is history.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | October 12, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Maddogg,
I'm not entirely sure about this, but the Obama Administration may be obligated to appeal the decision from their oath to defend the laws of the U.S. How that is actually applied in real life may be a different matter.

jjcrockett14,
The military does indeed serve under the Constitution, as defined in Section 8. The UCMJ is a set of regulations that define the limits of their actions, akin to civilian law but "tuned" specifically to military use.

Posted by: RGee1 | October 12, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I would live to see the day! FREE AT LAST. FREE AT LAST.

Posted by: tboone1 | October 12, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Another leftist hack that thinks being made a judge makes her God.
It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the policy. It is up to Congress not the damn judiciary.
Why even have a congress if these judges are going to run the country.
We have Judge trying to run the New York City fire dept too.

Posted by: devluddite | October 12, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

This is another 9th circuit joke. This will be overturned as soon as the Supreme court decides to hear it. Celebrate while you can.

Posted by: VastRightWingConspirator | October 12, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Bout time judges start reading the constitution the way it is written. Now we have get the Supreme Court to do the same thing.

The scary part is that a Congress was allowed to get away with writing and passing an illegal law. I believe it was a Republican Congress too. Seig Heil!

Posted by: Maddogg | October 12, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Judges who want to make laws should run for congress.

This looks more like a political ploy, right before elections, than anything else.

I guess this judge earned some favors in the executive branch.

Posted by: Benson | October 12, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Disgusting. The liberal left works very hard to destroy the internal fabric of our society - while also attempting to weaken our ability to defend America from external enemies. We must remain Vigilant!

Posted by: ingeandjoe | October 12, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The tea party and libertarians should be celebrating the victory for individual freedom.

Posted by: chucko2 | October 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous. We wouldn't last a year if each member of Congress, all 535 of them, could act like independent satraps like the 3,168 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,645 district court judges.

Imagine each Congress Rep could pass any bill he or she wanted, all on their own!

When we set up an independent judiciary, with a couple dozen judges net inc Supreme Court justices "riding to handle Circuit Court deliberations" - we never intended for todays situation - for 3,168 people to have the autonomous power to jerk any decision by Congress, the military, or the President around to constrain them in favor of a lone wolf judge's agenda.

The activists on the judiciary are determined to shove gay marriage, gays in the military down the throats of the American public - no matter what they want, no matter what the elected officials or appointees of the Executive think should happen.

It all rests on the very thin thread of each of us, no matter what a judge's personal agenda - accepting judges as Gods over us all. When the public or the other branches finally stand up to the "lone wolves" of the judiciary - is when this all ends. And the Constitutional System is brought into balance again.
*******************************************

Was anyone here old enough to remember what it was like when people were fighting for civil rights legislation? Were people really as stupid as the person quoted above seems to be?

Posted by: denise4925 | October 12, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Lets just clear something up right now: Every gay man in America is actively trying to rape me.

That's why I can't shower with them, be in a bar with them, carpool with them, or anything else.

I'd have to constantly be on the defense for rapists, who are unable to resist their desires for my beautiful body.

Posted by: nonvoter | October 12, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

DADT struck down - woohoo!
When Pres. Truman desegregated the military, public opinion was 80% opposed.
In the case of gays in the military, over 70% of the public is supportive.
Hopefully, Pres. Obama will demonstrate the same type of visionary leadership as Truman and - just do it!

Posted by: angie12106 | October 12, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why all the homophobes seem to think that the "gays" are going to try to force themselves on all these fine, upstanding, straight people. I would think that with the number of sexual assaults that are reported in the military (not to mention the ones that are swept under the rug) we should be more worried about the straight ones forcing themselves on people.

Posted by: starrsitter | October 12, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Lets have equal rights for all americans straight or gay now!!

Posted by: willemkraal | October 12, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

the military operates under it's own system and this judge has no right to issue an injunction for anything the military does...
this judge should be impeached and removed from the bench...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 12, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought that a decision by a district court judge was only valid for the district they serve in and no other district is required to follow it and in fact their district can and often has come to a different decision that is just as legal in their district. So if I am correct where does this judge think she gets the authority to issue a world-wide injunction?

Posted by: rchayes | October 12, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the end of DADT will improve the military. Think about it:

Korea, a stalemate

Vietnam, a loss

Iraq

Posted by: magnifco1000 | October 12, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

@ denise4925's first comment - you are only half correct. The President has discretion to direct the DOJ to pursue litigation or appeals. If the President decides to pursue the appeal, then the DOJ will have to implement his decision (and the DOJ attorneys who make the argument may be doing so contrary to their personal opinions), but the President may decide not to pursue an appeal, and it is entirely in his discretion to make that decision.

Posted by: themegnapkin | October 12, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

keep in mind, if in uniform you act gay, you can be charged and removed from the service...
and forcing yourself on anyone will get you leavenworth for life...
behaviour that is not acceptable is behaviour that is not acceptable...
no matter what...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 12, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

the military is voluntary so that might prevent enlistees.

Besides the militry and the 2 wars still going has been used to boost employment
when the economy started to fail.

No civilzed country uses war as employement but guess what we do.

so enlistees should refuse to join and wait until the draft returns. If it does not then the militry will have a new diverse militry with gays.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | October 12, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Bit by bit the country moves in the right direction! (and by 'right' I mean forwards!)

Posted by: Moosem750 | October 12, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

If I were the Joint Chiefs, I would just ignore her. One unelected dipsh*t judge in Calif. means nothing.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 12, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

This is the Major problem with Judges in general - Judges are to Interpert the law NOT MAKE LAW - any Judge the makes law should be repremanded and lose the position as a judge - this is regardless of the issue
=============================================
When a judge makes an interpretation (first Amendment violated void DADT) to you they are making law. We may not like their interpretation but they do have the authority. Speaking of bad calls a Dubya appointed judge struck down the Wilson civil case by saying outing Plame was part of the Executive duties. Treason giving away state secrets was deemed a constitutional right of the executive.

Posted by: jameschirico | October 12, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Why discharge good warriors just for being gay? Look at our "straight" ones. Well paid, great pensions and benefits, but they still cannot win any wars. Who needs glory boys prancing around in berets but being worthless on the battlefield? We are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is still undetermined, we lost Vietnam and really lost Korea as well. So, despite trillions spent for defense, all we did is bankrupt ourselves and blow our national security by going into massive debt to China. So-called straight guys, your not measuring up, time to open things up a bit!

Posted by: magnifco1000 | October 12, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

So, have we addressed the shower and sleeping arrangements for all of these openly gay service members? How many of you have served aboard a Navy ship and are aware of the berthing arrangements? How many qualified men and women with "Christian" values will now exclude the military as an option after graduating High School? How many parents will now discourage their kids from joining the military because of this ruling? Are we heading to the "Starship Troopers" scenario of everyone showing together in one big facility?
Sad day for the military and the security of this great nation!

Posted by: nvyblu2 | October 12, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

We have a volunteer military. A good deal of the men and women serving do not want to do duty with, live with - proudly "out and fabulous" gay people.
The military is not staffed with progressive Jews, liberals, people from Manhattan and San Francisco.

Many currently in did not sign up to share their home with homosexuals. So they may be able to get out, or now plan on getting out.

We will see what the New Gay Military does to recruiting. My guess is less good Marines will want to join, and more who wish to remain stateside and redecorate the Pentagon. Threatening the volunteer nature of our military.
If the true fighters and warriors shun the military...stand by because we might have to reinstate the Draft.
The Draft. Brought to you by gay rights activists.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | October 12, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

First of all this is a non military argument. Our service members, in general, do not live in fear or hate homosexuals. That fiction was created by liberals who hate the military. I have heard other lies about morale, as well.

The facts are quite different. The reason that gay people are discouraged from serving is how do you segregate the sexes (we are essentially adding two new sexes, gay men and lesbian women), as is the norm. Men and women are never housed together. How do you house gay men together? The same applies to two gay women. I know this sounds funny, but I think it is easier to be naked around some one you KNOW would not be attracted to you, versus some one who might be attracted to you.

Anyone who has had any interaction with gay people knows that if a proposition is offered, you simply say, "Thanks for the interest, but I am straight". I have never had a gay man ever have any trouble with that. It has only happened twice in my 47 years, but it was no big deal.

As an ex Air Force member, I have no problem allowing gay people to serve openly. I would have no problem if my room mate was gay, mainly due to my comfort in my own skin. Military members are asked to die for their country, they can handle dealing with gay people. They have many times. Why anyone would claim that military members, as a whole, are homophobic is beyond me.

Posted by: thelaw1 | October 12, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

There is no right - constitutional, fundamental, or civil - to serve in the military. All kinds of people are excluded for all kinds of reasons. To say that telling people to keep their yaps shut about their sexual preferences "infringes the fundamental rights" of members of the military is claptrap of the highest order. Here is yet another judge out for her 15 minutes.

Gays in the military have a choice to make: keep their mouths shut and serve their country or blab their preferences and get out.

If the latter is more important than the former, then they shouldn't be there.

Posted by: RoxannaM | October 12, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Military pay and benefits are about ten times better then Wal Mart for somebody with just a high school
degree. It's a ticket to lifetime pay and benefits if you can make it. Soldiers will do what they are told and not mess with other soldiers inappropriately if they don't want to be a civilian waiting in an unemployment line. Gay or straight doesn't matter on this.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | October 12, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Judges are like psychologists. You can always find ONE to suit your needs...

Posted by: jblast2000 | October 12, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

As a U.S. Army Infantry combat vet, I am not comfortable with gay men showering with me. Homophobe, you say? Not even close. While stationed in Germany, we had common shower areas. A gay soldier waited until I went to shower, followed me in there, then tried to "hit on me" while, yup, we were both naked. Though I made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that I was not interested in any form or fashion, I had to tolerate his staring at me while I showered. The mood was so uncomfortable that I left and refused to shower with him again. Add to this another gay solider was caught feeling-up a straight soldier while he slept because he was under the misconception that the straight soldier had some hidden feelings for him. For those of you who say, "About time," I say to you that the MAJORITY of soldiers are opposed to open homosexuality in the military. It is disruptive at the very least. Our judicial system and federal government is trying to appease civilian special interest groups by allowing gays to openly serve in the military. As usual, the liberals feel that imposing lopsided laws is akin to equal rights. There is nothing "equal" about this.

-

Posted by: JetJagger | October 12, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

getting rid of don't ask don't tell is just asking for trouble.

Why do gays) feel the need to anounce to the whole world that they are gay?

You never see straight people parades.

I say keep it to yourself.

Posted by: bbitemee | October 12, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

getting rid of don't ask don't tell is just asking for trouble.

Why do gays) feel the need to anounce to the whole world that they are gay?

You never see straight people parades.

I say keep it to yourself.

Posted by: bbitemee | October 12, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Another activist judge making law from the bench.When the Dem's lose power this is something that has to be dealt with.Too many progressive judges taking americans where they don't want to go!!Life time appointments should be stopped.We need to put the power where it was intended WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!Guarantee Gays openly gay in the military will in time tear moral apart.You think friendly fire in vietnam was bad.Think people.We need to have a review board of picked jurors to review judges!!Now that's democracy!!!

Posted by: votingrevolution1 | October 12, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

I would imagine there would be some guys and gals misbehaving but the majority of our military men and women will handle this new environment just well. I am happy we are forcing our congressional (bought and paid for) government to move into the 21st century. There is hope yet for America.

Posted by: BaysoxFan39 | October 12, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Isn't nice, more hate speech.

Posted by: bobbarnes | October 12, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I am laughing my arse off seeing (whom I believe to be) gays posting here that the "straight boys" aren't winning our wars, so maybe gays need to be recruited to win them. Are you F*ing kidding me??? These are the same people who hate combat to begin with, have suicidal meltdowns due to the stresses of the "gay lifestyle", suffer one emotional trauma after another when "picked on" by straight men, and often INTENTIONALLY try to act like a physically and emotionally weaker sex. Once again, are you F*ing kidding me???

-

Posted by: JetJagger | October 12, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

(being a woman) If I was in the military and had to room with an openly lesbian woman, I would feel really uncomfortable dressing and undressing let alone showering with her in the same room..

people need to realise that the military is a whole different kind of job when you have to room and shower with the people you work with.

I think this is going to cause a whole lot of problems!

Posted by: bbitemee | October 12, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

(being a woman) If I was in the military and had to room with an openly lesbian woman, I would feel really uncomfortable dressing and undressing let alone showering with her in the same room..

people need to realise that the military is a whole different kind of job when you have to room and shower with the people you work with.

I think this is going to cause a whole lot of problems!

Posted by: bbitemee | October 12, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

RoxannaM - Thanks for countering SHADOW27 better than I ever could. There is no 'Right' to serve in the military.

JetLagger - I'm still in, and yep, I had a company commander (not mine) try to get 'comfortable' with me in his office when I was a Lieutenant. Two years latter he was dismissed from service for getting NCOs drunk and molesting them at a party.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 12, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

One more comment with respect to unconstitutional vs accepted military behavior. Men who are focused on the enemy in battle shouldn't be worrying about their male lover (who may be sitting next to them), the same way that I shouldn't be distracted by a woman that I love sitting next to me in a foxhole. Dumb arguments like... well, if we were free to admit it, blah, blah, blah means that now the military has to worry about who to pair up with who because of emotional attachment. WAKE UP GUYS! This is not what the military is about.

Posted by: nickfleming1 | October 12, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see this finally happen. I cannot for the life of me see how a persons' sexual preference qualifies him/her (or not) for the military.
BTW..........I'm straight.

Posted by: rosie050 | October 12, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, if you were on the field of battle, and your life was at stake, how would you feel about people who have nothing at stake deciding who's watching your back? I can't even process the ignorance of someone who believes that they should have the right to make this decision. Trust me, the Chinese, Koreans and a handful of other countries are laughing at us, while we wrestle with whether picking a team for war is the same as making politically correct selections for a dinner party.

Posted by: nickfleming1 | October 12, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

@rosie050: "I'm glad to see this finally happen. I cannot for the life of me see how a persons' sexual preference qualifies him/her (or not) for the military.
BTW..........I'm straight."

-----------

...and you've apparently never been in a combat situation. Two gay people working in the mess hall serving food is fine. Combat soldiers who have to sh*t, shower, and shave together on a battlefield don't need the distractions of worrying about some dude staring at their collective peckers in the shower. Oh, I can see it now...the enemy captures one of our gay soldiers, strips him down, and finds that he is wearing Victoria's Secret panties. Wow, that'd be GREAT for the morale of our troops!!!

-

Posted by: JetJagger | October 12, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

And President Obama wonders why progressive have a Don't Ask - Don't Give policy toward this election and in particular Obama. He is a two-faced liar.

Posted by: cougartonyusa | October 12, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Why am I not surprised that there is at least one judge out there, in this case a female one who doesn't have a clue, that will overturn the will of the people. So why do we need a Congress or for that matter a President? Just let the judges continue to run everything. I would not mind it so much if they were all elected and had to run every 6 years for reelection. But for life? That is nuts


Posted by: linus12 | October 12, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Of course people who are not wired for war/battle can't see how an open expression of sexual preference might distract someone on the battlefield. That being said, I can't see how hormones and post partum depression should make a difference. It's all a bunch of hogwash isn't it? Of course, I don't mean that, but then again, I'm not likely to open voice my dumb opinion about what it's like to be a woman, or endure their challenges. However, I've never experienced the same courtesy being extended to me with regard to what motivates a man.

Posted by: nickfleming1 | October 12, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter if you're straight. Battle and war is not your game. Men are wired to jump in front of a bullet and risk their lives. It's what we do. Do you think that you're qualified to come to a gang fight and tell the men there how to use their baseball bats?

Posted by: nickfleming1 | October 12, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

That will give the Terrorists TWO reasons to KILL them !!!

Posted by: thgirbla | October 12, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic, not a judicial dictatorship."

What supposedly happens with "judicial activism" is that a judge or group of judges reaches a preferred conclusion without grounding in the case facts, the law and applicable precedent. Complaining about a judge's decision in any case by preferring a certain conclusion without grounding in the case facts, the law and applicable precedent is exactly the same thing, absent the ability to enforce the decision. Go read the decision in Marbury v. Madison.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Sodomy now, sodomy tomorrow and sodomy forever.

Posted by: Dodgers1 | October 12, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse


This is a bit like a headline trumpeting that the pitcher on the local farm team threw a no-hitter.

Call me when Scalia reads his majority opinion for the Roberts Court.

"In contrast to the Supreme Court, which was established by Article III of the Constitution, the district courts were established by Congress.[1] There is no constitutional requirement that there be any district courts at all."

Posted by: WylieD | October 12, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Look. If you are gay. And, if you are in the US military, I don't care where in the world you are, or what some government policy wonk is ordering you to think, keep your mouth shut about being gay. That's right....don't ask, don't tell.
To keep it simple....Don't go buggering another military man, or woman, while on duty, and/or on base, any more than a straight would another straight.
This country faces enough serious challenges without our
'leaders' consuming themselves with this very important, top priority non-issue and `crucial' civil rights silliness.
To keep it even simpler, keep it in your pants and keep it to yourself and get back to work.
How about that?

Posted by: jmf3210 | October 12, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

This is SO going to get overturned. Military m embers give up a LOT of rights, and the courts have ALWAYS said that it isn't really a giving up of rights, but a "deference" to congress. Hence why service members cannot wear religious gear while on duty. There was a case about a Jewish air force officer who was forbidden to wear a yarmulke, and he lost, the court said it wasn't a violation of his first am endment right to freedom of worship, but rather was the result of great deference to congress when ti comes to military matters. This WILL be overturned..

Posted by: scoran | October 12, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Finally,
I watched 5 of my friends that were very good at their jobs get kicked out as a result of "witch hunts" before DADT. DADT didn't change any policy that was in place, except reinforce that if you admitted you were gay you were kicked out.

The policy actually was more prohibitive if you were gay than helpful because it gave the military the ability to discharge you dishonorably based on a verbal statement. In other words, before DADT if you hid your sexuality and did a good job without getting caught you might survive one or two enlistments. After DADT what changed? If you're gay in the military what is the likelihood that you could last 20 years without getting caught after 20 years of good service under DADT as well? You could serve 19 years and six months, get outed by NIS and then your career (retirement)is gone under DADT.

My user name,
JimB20009, please read the comments that I posted over time about this.

Posted by: JimB20009 | October 12, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html

It easily will be extended to this situation, and not just the first amendment, which is probably our most cherished traditions, so it's an easy case, this will be overturned, my liberal friends.

Posted by: scoran | October 12, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

How many of these justices served in any branch of the military services?


Posted by: momof20yo | October 12, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama now has the obligation to order the military to stop discriminating against american citizens because it is against the law.He sworn to uphold the constitution, If not he must be impeach for dereliction of ditties

Posted by: rappahanock | October 12, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Who is this judge? Who gave her the power to decide this? This is a legislative issue which needs to go through Congress.

Posted by: Jsuf | October 12, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Look. I don't care who you are, or what you are, or where in the world you are...if you are in the US military, keep your mouth shut about your 'sexual orientation.' That's right....at the risk of being arrested by the federal thought police, don't ask and don' tell. Nobody relly wants to know anyway.
To keep it simple...don't try to bugger a fellow soldier while on duty or on base. That goes for gays and straights.
To keep it even simpler: keep it in your pants, keep it to yourself, and get back to work, soldier.

Posted by: jmf3210 | October 12, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

After all judge Phillips knows more than the generals, congress, Obama and the millions of Americans who are backers of DADT!

Posted by: IamWright | October 12, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

jmf3210
Look. Ditto, etc.

Posted by: JimB20009 | October 12, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Finally,
I watched 5 of my friends that were very good at their jobs get kicked out as a result of "witch hunts" before DADT. DADT didn't change any policy that was in place, except reinforce that if you admitted you were gay you were kicked out.

The policy actually was more prohibitive if you were gay than helpful because it gave the military the ability to discharge you dishonorably based on a verbal statement. In other words, before DADT if you hid your sexuality and did a good job without getting caught you might survive one or two enlistments. After DADT what changed? If you're gay in the military what is the likelihood that you could last 20 years without getting caught after 20 years of good service under DADT as well? You could serve 19 years and six months, get outed by NIS and then your career (retirement)is gone under DADT.

My user name,
JimB20009, please read the comments that I posted over time about this.

Posted by: JimB20009 | October 12, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

I can see it now. Straight combat soliders demand that gay combat soldiers are housed separately. Gay combat soldiers protest because they are being treated "unfairly" as "outcasts" and end up being housed with straight soldiers due to such protests.

Folks, men who sodomize other men shouldn't have the "right" to demand a daily peep show of swinging dicks for the sake of "equality". If you are gay, then you are (for all intents and purposes) another sex. If you are gay and want to serve in the military, then you need to be housed separately. End of story.

This isn't a homophobe issue. It is a potential sexual harrassment time bomb.

-

Posted by: JetJagger | October 12, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

ALL CHURCH'S ,TEMPLES, etc., (INCORPORATIONS) ARE BY LAW IMF U.C.C. IRS 501(c)(3) LLC/S-CORPORATIONS NOT-FOR-PROFIT (FOR PROFIT REALLY) JUST LOOK HOW THE TOP ALWAYS END UP LIVING GOOD AND WEALTHY DOING THE THINGS THE DUMB SHEEP ARE NOT TO DO, a corporation is a Fictitious "PERSON" made up by people to function as one person, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT A CITIZENS 32US243 wikipedia /google Constitine .

THE HUMANE CIVILITY EQUALITY MOVEMENT ( HCEM PARTY ), PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BECAUSE YOURS IS NEXT TO GO VERY SOON (BLACKS/ FEMALES/ DISABLED/ ALL OTHER RACES/ NOT WHITE (NORDIC) ENOUGH @100% etc (ADA BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANTS) EVERYONE'S 25TH COUSINS ANYWAY. US CITIZENS MUST BE REMINDED BY CHANTING: OLD JIM CROW MUST GO, RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE FOR INHUMANE TREATMENT OF OTHERS, (HATE CRIMES/ PEDOPHILE SET-UPS/ HARASSMENT , DENIAL OF EDUCATION , HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT [ BOTH GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTORS] )

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The US Military is a privilege to be a part of. It is not a 'Right'. 100% of the troops are voluntary, no draft. Every one who swore in took an oath to uphold it's laws.
1. If you haven't served / dont plan on serving in the military, your voice in this matter is unwelcome.
2. This issue goes much further than sexual orientation. The way the military functions couldn't logistically handle 4 different sexes.
3. What would be the next step if this is repealed? Letting mentally/physically challenged people to serve? Having obese people patrolling the streets of Afghanistan? Allowing unions to be formed?

You know what, some things in life aren't fair.

Posted by: americansoldier1 | October 12, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

OMG! A judge that actually knows the US Constitution. Amazing.

The scary part of this DADT law is that a Republican Congress was actually able to pass a "illegal" law.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 12, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

What a shame! I hope the government appeals it. The judge must be a queer!

Posted by: FloridaCitizen | October 12, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

THE US JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AT THE PENTAGON SAID IT THEMSELVES, THE HELP OF OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS ARE NEEDED FOR ANY WAR'S SUCCESS ,FYI TRUMP CARD THE US CORPORATION 28USC3001(15)(A)(B)(C) IS STILL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OK, DADT UCMJ WAS RELIGIOUS INTERESTS (OPPRESSION) IN PUBLIC TRUST, THAT'S A CONSTITUTION VIOLATION TO US CITIZEN STATUS, TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY IS BOTH A PUBLIC TRUST AND AN ENTITLEMENT TO US CITIZENS RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE US CONSTITUTION FOR THE USA PROTECTION INTEREST ,AND PROSPERITY

THE US CONSTITUTION ART6SEC13".....BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES" TO MAKE ANY TO PROFESS A FAITH AND OR FREE MASONIC AFFILIATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

P90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42$$$$$$$
sorry to disturb u. just take u a little time.
If you are in need,
welcome to : h t t p : / / w w w . b 2 b j o r d a n s . c o m ./
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,l nba jersy for sale sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality
BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!
Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder
Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
2) They are in stock now;
3) Various styles and color for clients’ choice
4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price
puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!
new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps
true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35
LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35
NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35
UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35
DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15
DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15
new brand watches only $$$$$$$60
h t t p : / / w w w . b 2 b j o r d a n s . c o m ./

Posted by: 1561705755 | October 12, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I hope the White House doesn't waste any federal tax dollars on any appeals of this ruling.

It's done. DADT is over. Stop wasting our taxes and time on this.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 12, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

"ADAM KADMON" THE IMAGE OF "YHVH GOD" WAS CREATED AN HERMAPHRODITE AND MANKIND WILL BECOME THAT AGAIN, ie MARRIAGE IS THE CONTRACTUAL CEREMONY FOR THE HERMAPHRODITE FUTURE OF MANKIND ie (THE TWO BECOME ONE FLESH AS IN THE BEGINNING), TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE, MALES =TESTO ANGULAR SQUARE IN FACE (MARS) AND FEMALE= ESTRO ARE ROUNDISH CIRCLE (VENUS), THE HERMAPHRODITE IS BOTH=T-ESTRO (ANDROGENIC DHEA) ie OCTOGENARIAN IN FACES (HERMES/ DIANA), =BOTH STATIC AND MOVABLE AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE ie THE 2SPIRIT BEING CAN TRAVEL WITHOUT MOVING ie HERMETIC LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES (LAW/ CIVILIZATION)

THE MOVABLE THRONE OF THE YHVH IN KBLH, THE MERKABA A THREE DEMENTIONAL STAR OF DAVID, IF YOU CONNECT THE POINTS OF THE 6 RAYED STAR YOU WILL GET THE HERMAPHRODITE SEXAGON , WHICH LOOKS LIKE A STOP SIGN, IN BOTH SEFERS YETZIRAH AND RAZIEL, THE SOUL COMES FROM DRACONUS VILONS, THE DOOR TO GODS ABODE IS THE PLEAIDES, THE MERKABA IS IN THE ORION STAR SYSTEM AND THE SHOW STONE OF THE LORD IS THE SIRIUS SYSTEM, BLESSED BE THE GREAT EYE AMEN, AS "JESUS" SAID " OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN "Ouranois" FOR THE ORION STAR SYSTEM "ΠΑΤΕΡ ΗΜΩNΟ ΕN ΤΟIΣ ΟΥΡΑNΟIΣ", Google: Orion star and Ouranos, it's the Three Kings is connected to Astrology, Google: Zeitgest Bible, for further study and information

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it's an incited Glenn Beck Christian nut house in here!

DO PEOPLE WHO WRITE IN ALL CAPS THINK PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ THEIR CRAP?

Posted by: areyousaying | October 12, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse


How many of these justices served in any branch of the military services?


Posted by: momof20yo

How many of these "expert" posters have?

Posted by: areyousaying | October 12, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Judicial "activism" is simply a right wing buzz word that attempts to diminish any court ruling that counters their particular political point of view.

If a judge overturns a decision or nullifies a piece of legislation generated by progressive Democrats, the he/she is a righteous warrior defending the U.S. Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, blah, blah, blah.

If the same judge was to rule against a conservative Republican position, then he/she is an "activist judge" who needs to be removed from the court ASAP.

Posted by: labman57 | October 12, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

MALES FEEL THIS WAY BECAUSE OF "GOD" NATURAL ESTROGEN RE-ENFORCE BY THE FOOD SOURCE OF DIVINE ORDER, ALL "HETERAL"? MALES HAVE GOOD LOOKING MALE FRIENDS NOT THE "NERD" LOOKING ONES ,SHOWS MALE ARE INFLUENCE BY APPEARANCE OF OTHER MALES, THE POPULAR ONES ARE BUILT BODY AND OR FACE FEATURES always

LETS GO...SO YOUR SAYING THE ESTROGEN DOES NOT INFLUENCE SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT....ASK A FEMALE...AND YOU SAY BEING ONE OF THE INTERSEX GENETICS VARIATIONS, WOULD NOT CROSS OVER FEMALE FEELINGS INCLUDING SEXUAL INTO A XXY MALE AND VISA VERSA, IF SO THE WHY THEN IS A FEMALE ATTRACTED TO A MALE? AND A MALE TO A FEMALE? SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS MORE THAN OUTWARD APPEARANCE ALONE, AN INTERSEX VARIANT PERSON, ATTRACTS ,CARRYS AND EMMIT'S BOTH XY/XX PHEROMONES, AND IS ATTRACTED TO BOTH MALE AND FEMALE PHEROMONES SO AN ALL MALE WOULD BE ATTRACTED TO A FEMALE AND INTERSEX PERSONS, SO WILL A FEMALE BE ATTRACTED TO A MALE AND INTERSEX PERSONS AS WELL, PHEROMONE IS THE HIDDEN PLAY HERE OK , GENETICS/ HORMONES/PHEROMONES COMBOS IS NOT A SIN, NOR A CHOICE, ITS THAT SCIENTIFIC

YOUTUBE/WIKIPEDIA: INTERSEX AND XXY MALE....MANY APPEAR NORMAL LOOKING SOME THE GENITAL IS OUT SIDE AND SOME ITS INSIDE THAT MEDICINE AND SCIENCE CAN DETECT THE ADA LAW PROTECTS THEM,,,SO XTIAN CHUCHES BACK OFF YOUR A IRS 501(C)(3) LLC/S-CORPORATIONS AND LIKE THE KKK YOUR LIABLE FOR WHAT YOU TEACH, ANY ACTS OF VIOLENCE ON A SAME SEXER WILL BE PRESSED AS A PATRIOT/NATIONAL SECURITY ACT VIOLATION ( HARMING A US CITIZEN )

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

My concern is for the straight soldiers, hopefully the tutties can control themselves. Odumbo is looking for the gay votes.

Posted by: Sparky15 | October 12, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

OK THE ISSUE PRESSED BY A GOP GROUP (LOG CABINS) , AND RULED ON BY A GOP GWBUSH JUDGE, HOW WILL SCOTUS RULE

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how the American wealthy forces of evil counter this court ruling. Surely there is something they can do hold on to their prejudice and disgust. From a purely scientific point of view, every human's attraction to other persons varies along a continuum from strictly opposite sex to strictly same sex. Of course, the Holy Bible was written long before this was understood. So, just as one is forbidden to eat certain foods, one is forbidden to have "disgusting" sex. A big THANK YOU to the religious peanut gallery that gives license to authoritarians to bully the rest of us into complying with their perceived needs.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | October 12, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a disease just like pedophilia is. Why would anybody want to legalize it?

The U.S. military is already weak but some liberal folks want to introduce more disease in the ranks.

Posted by: spidermean2 | October 12, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to say, but some gay soldier is going to die because of this. He will come out and some homophobes in his or another unit will kill him in a hate crime.

Posted by: jameswcarter | October 12, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Does it mean gays can now OPENLY court young men in the military? Can SEXUAL HARRASSMENT be filed on them if the courting becomes very aggressive even in the shower rooms?

Posted by: spidermean2 | October 12, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to say, but some gay soldier is going to die because of this. He will come out and some homophobes in his or another unit will kill him in a hate crime.

Posted by: jameswcarter | October 12, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

OK THE ISSUE PRESSED BY A GOP GROUP (LOG CABINS) , AND RULED ON BY A GOP GWBUSH JUDGE, HOW WILL SCOTUS RULE

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

the hysterical and ignorant right wing dopes are out in full force for this one...

Posted by: funkey | October 12, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Activist Judges: When the Supreme Court said that the constitution protects the right to carry guns and negated scores of gun control laws, I don't recall anyone yelping about judges writing the law.

Posted by: digiphase | October 12, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

"This isn't a homophobe issue. It is a potential sexual harrassment time bomb."

News flash for you. Gay men and women have been serving in the military ever since there WAS a military. I understand that you're all hot and bothered about the "peep show" but gay service members are simply being asked to be treated as straight members. Straight service members are subject to military discipline for any conduct, including sexual harassment, and gay service members will be, as well. You're too late trying to keep gays and lesbians out or ghettoized. They're already there. They just don't want to be subjected to neurotic bigotry like yours.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to note that REPUBLICANS filed the lawsuit.


I don't see where the policy itself is unconstitutional, per se. Basically it just says in so many words, "Keep your personal life to yourself" [Don't ask don't tell].

But this might open up a whole can of worms for homosexuals, giving them more than they bargained for. Because, since they want to be allowed to be "in your face" with their sexual orientation, now, to be fair to heterosexuals, homosexuals should be SEGREGATED from those they sexually desire, same as are heterosexuals. Otherwise the Equal Protection clause will be violated.

The only constitutional solution would be to segregate each homosexual INDIVIDUALLY. But that would be pragmatically impossible. So I think the military's DADT policy should be deemed as an acceptable compromise between showing unconstitutional favoritism towards homosexuals, or being unable to accommodate them at all in the military.

Posted by: tncdel | October 12, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sorry to say, but some gay soldier is going to die because of this."

It's too late. PFC Barry Winchell was viciously murdered in his bunk by two of his fellow soldiers on July 6, 1999 because they suspected, incorrectly, that he was gay.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

There are few things more completely stupid in this debate than people that petulantly demand that gay service members not be pushing their sexual orientation on other service members. Straight people's sexuality is shoved "in the face" of gay people throughout society including in the military. Of course, if you want to require that straight service members not be allowed to display photos of their spouses or lovers and police all facilities to keep out any form of depictions of nudity, then you might be approaching some discussion of equality in that regard.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

THERE ARE SIX KNOWN GENETIC SEX COMBINATION: EACH HAS ITS OWN SPECTRAL RANGES
GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA YOUTUBE THE TERMS: "INTERSEX" AND " XXY MALES" ITS MEDICAL SCIENCE

Female=XX (normal) , XXx (super female) , XXy (tom boyish andro)

Male=XY (normal) , XYy (super male) , XYx (Andro)

BIBLICAL: ADAM WAS CREATED AN HERMAPHRODITE ,(ADAM HAD THREE WIVES IN HIS LIFE)

FYI IT WAS ADAM AND STEVE FIRST THEN YHVH SEX INVERSE STEVE INTO EVE ie THE TISSUE , CLONING WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE A SAME SEX TWIN, TRUTH ON EVE IS THE S-HE IS BOTH ADAM'S CLONED TWIN AND CHILD, FOR ADAM EXISTED FIRST, S-HE IS CALLED WO-MAN ie WOMB OF MAN, S-HE'S ADAMS FIRST BEGOTTEN SO ADAM IS BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER AS WELL AS HUSBAND TO st-EVE.

EVE CAME OUT OF HIM, CLONING TECHNOLOGY=SAME SEX TWIN SO ie "GOD" DID THE FIRST MATHEMATICAL SEX CHANGE, FEMALES HAVE EVERYTHING MALES HAVE BUT THEIRS INVERSE MATH,

MALES FEEL THIS WAY BECAUSE OF "GOD" NATURAL ESTROGEN /PHEROMONE RE-ENFORCE BY THE FOOD SOURCE OF DIVINE ORDER, ALL "HETERAL"? MALES HAVE GOOD LOOKING MALE FRIENDS NOT THE "NERD" LOOKING ONES ,SHOWS MALE ARE INFLUENCE BY APPEARANCE OF OTHER MALES, THE POPULAR ONES ARE BUILT BODY AND OR FACE FEATURES always

LETS GO...SO XTIANS SAYING THE ESTROGEN DOES NOT INFLUENCE SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT....ASK A FEMALE...AND XTIAN SAY BEING ONE OF THE INTERSEX GENETICS VARIATIONS, WOULD NOT CROSS OVER FEMALE FEELINGS INCLUDING SEXUAL INTO A XXY MALE AND VISA VERSA ?, IF SO ,THEN WHY IS A FEMALE ATTRACTED TO A MALE? AND A MALE TO A FEMALE? SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS MORE THAN OUTWARD APPEARANCE ALONE, AN INTERSEX VARIANT PERSON, ATTRACTS ,CARRYS AND EMMIT'S BOTH XY/XX PHEROMONES, AND IS ATTRACTED TO BOTH MALE AND FEMALE PHEROMONES SO AN ALL MALE WOULD BE ATTRACTED TO A FEMALE AND INTERSEX PERSONS, SO WILL A FEMALE BE ATTRACTED TO A MALE AND INTERSEX PERSONS AS WELL, PHEROMONE IS THE HIDDEN PLAY HERE OK , GENETICS/ HORMONES/PHEROMONES COMBOS IS NOT A SIN, NOR A CHOICE, ITS THAT SCIENTIFIC

YOUTUBE/WIKIPEDIA: INTERSEX AND XXY MALE....MANY APPEAR NORMAL LOOKING , IN SOME THE GENITAL IS OUT SIDE AND SOME ITS INSIDE THAT MEDICINE AND SCIENCE CAN DETECT WITH TECHNOLOGY, THE ADA LAW PROTECTS THEM,,,SO XTIAN CHURCHES BACK OFF ,YOUR AN IRS 501(C)(3) LLC/S-CORPORATIONS AND LIKE THE KKK YOUR LIABLE FOR WHAT YOU TEACH OTHERS, ANY ACTS OF VIOLENCE ON A SAME SEXER WILL BE PRESSED AS A PATRIOT/NATIONAL SECURITY ACT VIOLATION ( HARMING A US CITIZEN ) WITH THE OFFICES OF THE CIA/ NSA/ AND FBI TERRORIST DIVISIONS PERIOD

THE OPPRESSION OF OLD JIM CROW MUST GO ,PERIOD, RELIGION IS NO EXCEPTION NOR EXEMPT FOR HATE CRIMES

Posted by: shaiarra | October 12, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ozma1 "Straight people's sexuality is shoved "in the face" of gay people throughout society including in the military."
======================================

One flaw to your rant. Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior. Simple fact o'life.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 12, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

st50taw, no self-respecting gay man wants anywhere near you and your "precious" jewels. I LOVE that homophobic men think every gay man in uniform will want them as a partner. Dear God you flatter yourselves. And as for women in your showers, again you flatter yourself. Get over it. We are here, we have the numbers, and we are not about to go away. Check out your family tree, we live in the branches!
******************************************II'm not gay and you're out to lunch. What the hell does any of that have to do with my post, anyway?

Posted by: st50taw | October 12, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by: timothy2me | October 12, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were smart he let it stay and not cow tow to the DOD; in turn win full support of the gay voter. He promised to get rid of DADT in quick order and has not, the no vote in the Senate is indeed his fault as he allowed again to cow tow to the DOD and did not let it be voted soon after his State of the Union Speech.

DOD wanted its very bias survey to be run before anything else and Obama who on paper is CIC caved here too.

He has his chance to show his true colors, I'm afraid jelly fish will rule his spine, not his pledges to the voters nor his statements made during this years State of the Union Speech. Shame on him!!!

Posted by: Ranger-Phx | October 12, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

The US Military is a privilege to be a part of. It is not a 'Right'. 100% of the troops are voluntary, no draft. Every one who swore in took an oath to uphold it's laws.
1. If you haven't served / dont plan on serving in the military, your voice in this matter is unwelcome.
2. This issue goes much further than sexual orientation. The way the military functions couldn't logistically handle 4 different sexes.
3. What would be the next step if this is repealed? Letting mentally/physically challenged people to serve? Having obese people patrolling the streets of Afghanistan? Allowing unions to be formed?

You know what, some things in life aren't fair.
*****************************************
KSM, buddy. It's not YOUR military and I don't give a rat's behind whether you welcome my comments or not.

By the way, how do feel about having some gay Israeli soldier kicking your sexually insecure butt? Go over there and make those kind of comments, pansy. That would so fun to watch.

Posted by: st50taw | October 12, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"One flaw to your rant. Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior. Simple fact o'life."

Simple conclusory statements that aren't relevant to what I said. The issue is service members displaying their sexuality. Gay service members cannot show any indication of their sexuality under DADT. If someone wants to try to argue that DADT doesn't disadvantage gay service members in violation of their right to free association and free speech then they have to demonstrate that straight members are similarly prevented from "flaunting" their sexuality. This is plainly not true.

Sorry, your neurotic bias against gays and lesbians isn't the end of the discussion.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Ranger-Phx "If Obama were smart he let it stay and not cow tow to the DOD; in turn win full support of the gay voter. "
========================================

Why do you expect him to do that? Obama is anti gay marriage.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 12, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I learned that The United States became a democracy after the example of Greece! Well, Greece was a democracy before Christianity came to be; and I am a proud Christian. In that democracy there were fireced "gay" soldires defending that democracy.This issue is being fueled by "fundamentalist republicans" who are deviding Our Democracy with their polarism.As long as anyone can pull a triger, let him-her defend Our nation.Remember, "the Right" had Jesus arrested and killed!" So who is right? The Right, The Left or The Middle? The Moral issues should be deceided by The Poeple!This is probably why Pilate had no guilt!He left it up to the Pople and washed His hands!Fundamentalism is UnAmerican and Republicans are killing The USA with teir deceitfull arrogance that is not a Christian trait! Specially when they side with the rich!He who has ears, let him listen!

Posted by: 1infodata | October 12, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of thing that DADT makes completely possible. From the opinion (my emphasis):

"On one occasion that Rocha testified was especially dehumanizing, Toussaint brought a dozen dogs to the Department of Defense Dependent School for a bomb threat training exercise. For the 'training exercise' he instructed Rocha to SIMULATE PERFORMING ORAL SEX ON ANOTHER MAN, Martinez, while Toussaint called out commands about how Rocha should make the scenario appear more 'queer.' (Trial Tr. 490:13-492:19, July 15, 2010.) On another occasion, Toussaint had Rocha LEASHED LIKE A DOG, paraded around the grounds in front of other soldiers, tied to a chair, FORCE-FED DOG FOOD, and left in a dog kennel COVERED WITH FECES. (Trial Tr. 521:11-522:1, July 15, 2010.) Rocha testified that during this deployment in Bahrain, he never told anyone he was gay because he wanted to comply with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act. (Trial Tr. 487:20-488:2, July 15, 2010.) He did not report any of the mistreatment, although he believed it violated Navy regulations. (Trial Tr. 488:20-489:14, July 15, 2010.) Toussaint was his commanding officer to whom he normally would direct such a report and yet was either responsible for the mistreatment or at least present when others engaged in it. (Id.) Rocha's only other choice was to report the misconduct to the Inspector General, which he did not believe was feasible."

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 1infodata: "I learned that The United States became a democracy after the example of Greece!"

----------------------------------------
Actually incorrect. Read what the Founding Fathers thought about Democracies. For good reason too.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 12, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, it is likely the Supreme Court will eventually overturn this order as the Court, in several rulings, has determined the armed forces are exempt from many Constitutional rights, that they and Congress are best at determining which rights apply and which do not. The Robert's Court has demonstrated a proclivity to ignore precedent so irrespectve of what the Justice Department chooses to do, I'm confident that this Supreme Court will find a way to rule on this order.

Posted by: HarryR | October 12, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Personally since I believe bad and evil aren't real I think I've got some sort of hearing and vision impairment. A man fornicating with another man?!? That isn't natural for the common species of 'humans' on this planet. So I guess I'm seeing and hearing things or the aliens have landed.

Of course being only 29 and not raised on bigotry I use to think gayness was natural and gay rights were real important. I've wised up though. It could not be more obvious that the male and his genitals go with the female and her genitals. Biological symmetry!

So I ask what am I going to hallucinate about next. Men and farm horses getting married and living on base together? Or maybe it will be the left-wing being up in arms because family sex (incest) is not allowed in the military. Who knows.

And to other fair-minded, non-discriminatory folks out there: You have been brainwashed to believe homosexuality is okay and natural. It is not!

And to the rest of you that think gayness is natural and normal but want Jim Crow in the military: F uck you. If your buttocks itches more than normal it's me that it is doing it.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | October 12, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"When the Navy undertook an investigation of Toussaint's command (apparently unmotivated by anything Rocha said or did), Rocha was Questioned by a captain but at first refused to answer any questions about the mistreatment he was subjected to because he was afraid the investigation might lead to questions about his sexual orientation and an investigation on that subject. (Trial Tr. 519:16-520:10, July 15, 2010.) So great was Rocha's fear of retaliation that he responded to an investigating officer's questions regarding Toussaint ONLY AFTER HE WAS THREATENED WITH A COURT MARTIAL IF HE REFUSED TO DO SO. (Trial Tr. 520:11-15, July 15, 2010.)"

DADT invites sexual harassment (without fear of retaliation) by straight service members against those that they even imagine are gay.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

The issue is service members displaying their sexuality. Posted by: ozma1

--------------------------------------
Correct. One is normal human behavior (heterosexuality) and the other is abnormal behavior (homosexuality) generally rejected by mentally healthy members of the species. VERY simple as it is hardwired for survival.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 12, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

For the constitution haters that delude themselves that they are patriots:

1) The US isn't a democracy. It is a Constitutional republic.You won't find the word democracy in the constitution.

2) It is the judicial branch of the government that rules on whether a law is constitutional or not. Congress can pass any law they want but in a court of law if it is found to be unconstitutional then that law is struck down.

3) Every member of the military takes and oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Posted by: timothy2me | October 12, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"Correct. One is normal human behavior (heterosexuality) and the other is abnormal behavior (homosexuality) generally rejected by mentally healthy members of the species."

You'll search in vain with the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association for anything that supports your notion that being gay is to be mentally unhealthy. As I noted, your neurotic bigotry isn't the end of the matter but it's nice to know that you support the kind of abuse received by Joseph Rocha that I cited above.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ozma1 "You'll search in vain with the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association for anything that supports your notion that being gay is to be mentally unhealthy."
---------------------------------------
Most likely. But, as I never made that claim, you are being non sequitur or, illiterate. Which is it?

I stated it was abnormal. I'm sorry if English isn't your 1st language. Maybe that is what's going on?

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 12, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I have a feeling a lot of Tea Partying "Back to the Constitution" types are here displaying their abject ignorance of our Constitution and how our government works.

For example: "Uh, don't get too excited...
Federal judges do not have jurisdiction over the military law"

For one, DADT is a FEDERAL law, and the Judiciary, from Supreme Court down to Federal District courts, DO have jurisdiction over DADT. Did you think that DADT was made into law by some military legislature??

Secondly, the military is under civilian control. It is not its own branch of government.

I just wonder what these ignoramuses would say if Virginia, or one of the other states, got its challenge to the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform law heard by a Federal court, and the court ruled that requiring Americans to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional. Wouldn't they high-five?

Posted by: hitpoints | October 12, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

The US Justice system should prosecute the Pentagon and any of its gay-bashing morons for persecuting gays....They have served with distinction unlike yellow-bellied cowards like Idiot in Chief George W Bush....

Posted by: mapleleaf3 | October 12, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

The US Justice system should prosecute the Pentagon and any of its gay-bashing morons for persecuting gays....They have served with distinction unlike yellow-bellied cowards like Idiot in Chief George W Bush....

Posted by: mapleleaf3 | October 12, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

One of the witnesses in this case was Steven Vossler who comes from a family of service members, served in the United States Army and knew a service member who was gay. Vossler has become an advocate of repealing DADT because to him it "doesn't seem in line with American values" and he "do[es]n't understand how it's a law in [this] country" because he perceives it to be discriminatory.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Transgenderism? You people are all insane. Cutting out your penis and installing a vagina? If the Nazis would have been against fornication with farm cows you people would all be livid about the military not allowing cow and human sex.

I really do despise these Republicans that think gayness is normal and natural but want Jim Crow more then you Democrats that are to darned daffed to get that a man goes with a woman.

F ags suck. Just like most of you people.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | October 12, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"I stated it was abnormal."

To quote the former Vice-President on a different topic, "So?"

I understand that you may have the idea that the Universe turns on your notions of what is normal and abnormal, but the DSM-IV-TR might be of some assistance in describing that manner of thought.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"I just wonder what these ignoramuses would say if Virginia, or one of the other states, got its challenge to the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform law heard by a Federal court, and the court ruled that requiring Americans to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional. Wouldn't they high-five?"

Of course they would. The reason is that they have a preference for a certain outcome without reference to the case facts, law and applicable precedent. In other words, they display "judicial activism" with the hindrance that they aren't judges.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't the federal government address the concept of homosexual marriage first, before DOD has to experiment with it?

This to me is the elephant in the room, per se.

If DADT is repealed (immediately as some think here) is DOD going to be forced to provided benefits to all homosexual partners?

Will the Taxpayer support this? Shipping military families overseas and their benefits is a huge part of the DOD budget.

And I know the State Department is already doing this on a smaller scale, but I don't agree with it.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 12, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

"If DADT is repealed (immediately as some think here) is DOD going to be forced to provided benefits to all homosexual partners?"

Given that DADT has nothing to do with that and everything to do with discharging gay, lesbian and bisexual service members I wouldn't think so. However, if the law is, as Judge Phillips' has concluded, unconstitutional the possible affects of that ruling have no place in her decision.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 12, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of how one feels about "don't ask, don't tell," all Americans should be concerned with the increasing tendency of unelected federal judges to determine public law by decree. The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic, not a judicial dictatorship.

Posted by: austinrl

===========================

The Founding Father's set up the Judiciary as appointed life time position explicitly so they wouldn't be influenced by the people. It's there job to look at the law and the Constitution and not be influenced by a bunch of homophobes even if they are the majority.

Read this passage the James Madison read to Congress when he submitted what was to become the Bill of Rights. Read it until you get the last sentence.

----------------------

In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.

James Madison, June 8, 1879

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

===========================

Posted by: James10 | October 12, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

There is no joy for this old Marine as I watch this heathen mob descend to Sodom and Gomorra. A young man in the service must face many trials. You celebrate what you don’t understand. You dishonor us with your meddling.

Posted by: USMC73 | October 12, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

From the opinion:

"Jenny Kopfstein's commanding officer wrote that she was a 'hard working and dedicated junior officer who excelled as an Officer of the Deck' who 'played an important role in enhancing the ship's strong reputation.' (Trial Ex. 139 [Jenny L. Kopfstein Fitness Report and Counseling Record]; Trial Tr. 966:14-17.) He specifically noted that '[h]er sexual orientation has not disrupted good order and discipline on board USS SHILOH." (Trial Ex. 139; Trial Tr. 966:23-24.) Kopfstein testified that after she stopped concealing her homosexuality while serving on the USS Shiloh, she had many positive responses, and the ability of her fellow crew members to trust her improved, thus aiding the establishment of teamwork. (Trial Tr. 951:10-11, 979:8-21, 25, 980:1, July 20, 2010.)"

In fact, Don't Ask, Don't Tell specifically and conclusively harms military readiness and unit effectiveness. It is a failed policy and the Senate failed by not voting with the House to repeal it.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 13, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

OK, so now it's over. Please, let's not have any hopeless appeals. The issue is settled and -- guess what? The US military, the best in the world, can handle it. It won't take long before every warrior realizes that his/her buddies are all there for the same reason: to prevail in the conflict. If the gutless homophobes who never served in the military can just keep their mouths shut (for once), then we can move forward and solve some real problems.

Posted by: abc3 | October 13, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure will have a better stronger Military now, Huh?

I wonder why men and women don't bunk together?

Posted by: jblast2000 | October 13, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Good ruling. Obama's administration has been surprisingly weak on this point.

Soldiers are expected to go to war and maybe die. Shower rooms are not the most urgent of their concerns.

Posted by: asoders22 | October 13, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Good ruling. Obama's administration has been surprisingly weak on this point.

Soldiers are expected to go to war and maybe die. Shower rooms are not the most urgent of their concerns.

Posted by: asoders22 | October 13, 2010 12:25 AM
=================
Make sure you remember that when men start walking into women's bathrooms and showers in schools and in the military.

Anything else is discrimination and against the constitution. Better be prepared for the outcome.

Posted by: Cryos | October 13, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"Make sure you remember that when men start walking into women's bathrooms and showers in schools and in the military."

You know someone's on the wrong side of an issue when they can't think of anything to say except the evidence-free fantasies in their head. In fact, the ruling points to the testimony that outside of basic training the DoD's rules on architecture mean that most service members shower in single-user stalls.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 13, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

No matter which side of this issue you come down on, it's the fact that some liberal judge is going to force her/his ideology on the entire country, case closed.
End of discussion.
We're sick ot it.
No, thanks.
See you Nov. 2nd.

Posted by: robtay12003 | October 13, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

There will be an new meaning to the military term, covering your backside.

This liberal idea will probably blow up in their faces like the other really bad liberally idea that went on for years of putting Americans into homes they could barely afford or not quit afford...CRISIS

Posted by: jblast2000 | October 13, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

"No matter which side of this issue you come down on, it's the fact that some liberal judge is going to force her/his ideology on the entire country, case closed."

Count robtay12003 as a non-judge judicial activist for wanting a preferred outcome in this case without any reliance on the evidence, the law and applicable precedent. Of course, doing that would require, at a minimum, reading the 85 pages of the ruling which would not nearly be so enjoyable as just whining about imaginary judicial activism.

Meanwhile, jblast2000 displays the characteristic neurotic obsession with anal sex found so frequently among anti-gay bigots.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 13, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Great news for Republicans.
It just gets better and better.
It's almost as if they're TRYING to lose on Nov. 2nd.
If that's the case, thanks.
See you at the polls.

Posted by: robtay12003 | October 13, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

"Great news for Republicans.
It just gets better and better.
It's almost as if they're TRYING to lose on Nov. 2nd."

The veneer of logic is torn away by robtay12003. It's not about the law and the Constitution, it's about politics. Thanks for making your point of view clear.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 13, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Does this uniform make my butt look big?
Come on, be truthful, you savage.

Posted by: robtay12003 | October 13, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

"Does this uniform make my butt look big?"

No, but your puerile comment does make your mind look very small, though.

Posted by: ozma1 | October 13, 2010 1:23 AM | Report abuse

The repeal of "Don't ask don't tell" doesn't change the amount of homosexuals serving, they've been there all along you all just never paid attention. The structure is not going to change. It just means these individuals will no longer be shamed into denying part of who they are. Oppressing people into concealing their true identity for the sake of appeasing to the prejudices of others is pathetic.
Homosexuals are regular people too. They have morals and standards believe it or not and contrary to what many would like you to think, are not sexual deviants hell bent on seducing the unsuspecting, they are not sexual predators. Being out is not a formal invitation for indecent behavior. I find it so sad many of you think gay people are uncivilized heathens.
What's wrong will allowing these people the normalcy of of being who they are? How would you feel to be so far from home yet unable to carry on a decent conversation because you have to lie about who you are, to not even be able to talk about life back home and people that you miss? To not be allowed to post pictures of your family/friends? Its dehumanizing.These people are not seeking special attention or recognition based on sexual preference. They are just tired of the emotional distress that comes with living a lie.
Those opposing with unspoken hysteria about "gayness" rubbing off need to realize gay sex has been going on since we had a military, so you need to stop with the fear mongering that gays a going to destroy our armed forces turn war zones into sex parties. Most of the time when men are discovered having gay affairs it happens between "straight" individuals who have wives and kids back home and they are NOT engaging with anyone who is openly gay. These "straight" men convince themselves by fooling around with another hetero man it's not gay but doing so with a real gay person would in fact make them queer. And the sad thing is these men usually develop a complex towards out gays and become quite outspokenly homophobic fueling anti-gay movements.
A lot of the homophobia in America does not come from religious law though this is the way it's presented. It stems from fear and ignorance of not only society but of God's word. Using the Bible to promote intolerance is a direct disobedience to what the Bible teaches in the first place. God says to love one another and to pay attention to our own sins, that in passing judgment and condemning others we condemn our self to the same sins.
It's unbelievable how a lot of the religious right nit pick the Bible and only live by the laws they want to and ignore the rest. I hear a lot about how issues like "don't ask don't tell" undermine Christian morals yet things divorce, infidelity, pride, love of material possessions, hoarding wealth, racism, lying, mistreating the poor, and being judgmental to others are left out of that moral code. Guess Obama must have stole your Bibles and took those verses out huh?

Posted by: dja1a | October 13, 2010 4:23 AM | Report abuse

Ending or retaining DADT is and should be up to congress, since the constitution gives congress the authority to make the rules and regulations that govern the military. The military is unlike any other job in the United States where one cannot just quit the military if he is offended by something he feels is against his beliefs. In a civilian job he could quit and look for another job.

Posted by: sfcret | October 13, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

If you don't think this will degrade the moral in the military you are seriously kidding yourself. Straight guys which make up the vast majority of military personnel feel extremely uncomfortable around openly homosexual men. Obviously that is unfair and overtime it will change but that is the way it is today. The gays pushing this cause honestly feel discriminated against but for the most part it is being pushed by left wing fanatics that are trying to degrade and ultimately destroy the military. Why would they do that you ask? There is no real explanation besides liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: peterg73 | October 13, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

It's very simple. DADT is a civil rights violation. Civil rights violations are unconstitutional, and are therefore not subject to legislation.

Posted by: dmnemaine | October 13, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

THE US CONSTITUTION ART4 SEC2(1)THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, They are US CITIZENS OR NOT ? ,THERE ARE WANTING TO PROTECT OLD GLORY , 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C),

9th AMENDMENT: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE (ie ALL US CITIZENS)

You know, had a referendum on banning interracial marriages been put on the ballot down
South, up until about 20 years ago, it would have passed. Had civil rights been subject to a vote in those states, it would have also been voted down before about 1980.

matters of civil rights should never be put for a vote. If they were, as Prop 8 was, we might still have Jim Crow laws in the South, seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms, poll taxes, and a ban on inter-racial marriage, WOMEN RIGHT TO VOTE AND EQUAL PAY WAGES, "WOMEN EMANCIPATION ACT"

Posted by: shaiarra | October 13, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company