US Judge rules Don't Ask Don't Tell Unconstitutional

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

Woo! Yay! Just... here's the link!

{ DADT officially Unconstitutional }

Comments

The Christohomonazis will not let this stand!

I wonder what the next round of this will be? Correct me if I am wrong but this has been a non issue in many countries for a long time. I thought that I heard that Canada, the UK and Austrailia were but a few.

Gwendolyn

Australia

Australia recently decided to even let transgendered serve... Even with the elimination of DADT, transgendered service members are still excluded from service.

Anne

Why the Excitement?

As one person stated, why are we so excited about this? TGs are and will continue to be excluded. After 9/11 when I volunteered to return to active duty. While I was classified to be physically fit and able to serve as a female by the Army medical board, I was prevented from doing so by PERSCOM because the military consider me as a person suffering from a 'Suffer' from a psychological disorder.

Had I been gay I would have been able to keep my mouth shut and done my part to defend my country against radical jihadists. So the lifting of the gay ban is to me, and many patriotic members of the TG community meaningless.

And for those who say it is a first step, I have two words for you. Barney Frank

Nancy Cole

P.S. for those who do not understand the Barney Frank thing, go back to the comments he made when he and the GLB (little) t community threw us under the bus when ENDA was being fought for in 2007.

Nancy_Cole__Red_Background_.png


~ ~ ~

"You may be what you resolve to be."

T.J. Jackson

I agree

( of course ) why so 'whooped' about it, other then being LGB yourself?

I did some googling on Barney Frank, ENDA and 2007 and found this blogpost and the comments there on. It was quite illuminating as well as saddening, and I can only conclude that: Yes the LGB community has quite a pull for us, the 'lonely disheartened' T folk, and it's quite a comforting umbrella to be sharing. But we have to realize there is a difference in our agendas.

Even more is that there are conflicts and misunderstanding amidst the beliefs and acceptance about LGB and T issues that muddy the waters we both swim in. Many a gay man is not entirely convinced that a T woman is what she is. You may deny this, he may not say so, but you know it's there. The same goes for lesbian women and/or T men, and all combinations.

There is no sure way of telling which percentages of whatever this confusion brings in the way of misstating ones identity and/or sexuality, but I belief, I advocate, we start emphasizing the differences. Push forth our own agenda.

But I am not asking you to burn your bras, or climb the barricades. We are, at least we T women are, by nature less confrontational. Or maybe by hormone regime :) Also, I am not rallying for separation, I think we can be of benefit to each other, but we must be wary of being marginalized.

Use your mind, use your minds ( plural ) to work together, support your peers. And educate, by word and information, and by example. Not flaunt, be yourself, show that being who you are is just that, at peace and non-threatening.

Gosh, this is starting to sound like some manifest, or watcha-me-call-it. I'll step from my soap-box now.

Jo-Anne

All rights for everyone

erin's picture

When any part of any people anywhere have their just rights upheld and served, my freedom, and the freedom of everyone else, is also expanded. That's what the excitement is about.

Hugs,
Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, Morieris.

Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, Morieris.
(Now this bell tolling softly for another, says to me, Thou must die.)

Perchance [she] for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that [she] knows not it tolls for [her]; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. [...] As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by [these troubles]. There was a contention [...] which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as [hers] whose indeed it is. The bell doth toll for [her] that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon [her], [she] is united to God. Who casts not up [her] eye to the sun when it rises? But who takes off [her] eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not [her] ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? But who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of [herself] out of this world? No [woman] is an island, entire of itself; every [woman] is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any [woman's] death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . .

Paraphrased from Meditation 17 by John Donne

A slightly different thrust of topic, but the sentiment and meaning are relevant, and in line with what Erin says. An increase in the rights and welfare of all to all benefits by degrees. If my neighbor's welfare is assured, then mine is closer to being secured.

At least in theory. There are exceptions and circumstances that circumvent this, but the principle is still, I think, sound.

Though our own situations may not be relieved by this, and though not all the friends whose are have been fully true, nonetheless, it >is< a good thing, and a cause for rejoicing among them. It is a surly and unwelcome neighbor who complains when their neighbor receives good news that they also did not hear a good word. When the news heard may eventually have welcome echoes for us as well, it is doubly more appropriate that we rejoice with our neighbors. We may not celebrate to an irrational degree, for the news, as many have said, is not the news we wish to hear for ourselves, but we may still smile a little and call it good. When, then, our own struggles finally bear their fruit, will we not have neighbors with us to share own own celebrations?

I don't know. I ramble, which I have been told I shouldn't, and undoubtedly someone will object to the language I've used, or the references to the christian god (which were in the poem originally, and have been trimmed actually rather aggressively).

*sigh*

-Liz

-Liz

Successor to the LToC
Formerly known as "momonoimoto"

I'm sorry but...

if a homosexual wants to stand up to defend my country (canada) I say more power to him.

Same goes for non-homos too :-)

Nobody.

While it's been ruled

While it's been ruled unconstitutional, that doesn't actually prevent the military from getting rid of homosexuals if they so wish.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Of course if they actually enforced this rule, they would have to get rid of most of the members of the military.

Lawrence took care of that

Lawrence took care of that one a while ago, for heterosexuals as well as gays. Once the Republican'ts (no one else matters apparently)or the courts decide to do away with DADT the military will have to (officially at least) treat gays like humans.

While SCOTUS may have made

While SCOTUS may have made it illegal, the military could still use it to discharge members. There are plenty of rules and regs that are not illegal, but will get you in trouble or kicked out.

no,

they can not. JAG knows what is legal; they're lawyers.* Some people might bully maybe, but they can not use, or even pretend to use, regulations or laws that have been overturned. promise. (perhaps in other areas, things less obvious and publicized, they might prevaricate over the meanings of the law but, really, not with Lawrence, not to hte hearing stage, and not even earlier to anyone informed or that has any friends that are.)

*not that lawyers always know the law, but this is a biggie, and they would look it up.

Yes they can. While I was in

Yes they can. While I was in the army, if I went up to a superior and called them a dumb f*ck. I would get in trouble, that is not illegal, but it is against regulations. Like I said, it wouldn't be a conviction, but they certainly could punished under military regulations.

While much of the Constitution applies to soldiers, there are limits in some circumstances.

Factious

You're being factious, right?

No, it isn't only violations of law that can lead to lawful termination from any job, government or private, and such things can be used to get rid of anyone, but when it is sought or made-up or wrongly enforced, that is a separate issue called harassment, and when and if it gets egregious all kinds of shit will hit the fan. Whether or not gays will be harassed was not the topic, but know what? Not everyone in the military is a friggin; idiot.