Article

2008-05-22 Home Front: Culture Wars

Ninth Circus Court rules against military gays policy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-05-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 "The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay"

No, they must be scourged first ... (just kidding).

The military doesn't automatically discharge people because they are gay. They discharge people if they get all "out there" about their gayness. And that makes perfect sense. It is a morale issue. Imagine you have two gay men living together and having regular sex in the middle of the desert. And you also have eleventy-three other soldiers stuck in the same stinking desert for a year with no chances to have sex. Think there might be some issues? If you are going to allow homosexuals then fine ... you also have to allow straight soldiers to sleep together and then maybe you need "comfort girls" for the rest of the troops.

And what about the gay guy in a unit full of straights and he gets a little predatory and begins to "come on" to other guys? Now you have the stage set for all kinds of interpersonal drama.

This is just one more way the anti-American military entities can find to eat away (so to speak) at our military force's morale.

Posted by crosspatch 2008-05-22 01:45|| 2008-05-22 01:45|| Front Page Top

#2 US Constitution, Article I, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Article I, Section 8
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;" [Don't see anything here about the judiciary]
manifested by Title X USC - Armed Forces
of which Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X
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.

Seems clear as day that behavior is inconsistent with the law as written by Congress. Then again, why would an Imperial Judiciary worry about things like that? Because elsewhere in the LAW as empowered by Section 8, Congress added this

Chapter 37, para 654

The Ninth Circuit Court just issued another "L'Etat, c'est moi" fiat.

And "Don't ask, Don't tell" is because of that other piece of military stuff called good order and discipline -
"Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Take it to the House of the People to get your change. It is Congress' Law by Constitutional authority.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-05-22 08:37|| 2008-05-22 08:37|| Front Page Top

#3 And what about the gay guy in a unit full of straights and he gets a little predatory and begins to "come on" to other guys? Now you have the stage set for all kinds of interpersonal drama.

Crosspatch, I could be wrong but I think this is unlikely among an armed population. More likely the gays will find each other and leave the straights alone and then write a book later about how they feared for their lives and then go on Ellen and Oprah and a massive book tour.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-05-22 11:08|| 2008-05-22 11:08|| Front Page Top

#4 The "gays coming on to striaght" is a very very unlikely scenario.

But this is about an EXTREME overrreach by an appeals court and activist judges, ion direct contravention to the Constitution and the Legislative branch of government.

No more life appointments for judges. 12 years, with one areappointment possible. And THAT is all they get. Every 3 years they should stand an "approval" vote of all voters in their district, and if a majority disapprove, they are off the bench and a new judge is appointed.

Make them answerable. They need to have some responsibility thrown at them to balance thier authority.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-22 12:22|| 2008-05-22 12:22|| Front Page Top

#5 And yes, this is the MOST overturned court in the US.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-22 12:22|| 2008-05-22 12:22|| Front Page Top

#6 the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that Congress' don't ask, don't tell policy?

Posted by SteveS 2008-05-22 18:09|| 2008-05-22 18:09|| Front Page Top

#7 Steve, yes it is Congress's policy. However,several schools use it as an excuse to keep military recruiters off campus because the military discriminates against gays.
Nobody said that logic was their strong suit.

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-05-22 18:12|| 2008-05-22 18:12|| Front Page Top

23:46 bigjim-ky
23:44 McZoid
23:42 bigjim-ky
23:40 bigjim-ky
23:35 bigjim-ky
23:29 bigjim-ky
23:25 bigjim-ky
23:24 swksvolFF
23:20 Harcourt Jush7795
23:19 tu3031
23:16 Frank G
23:15 DMFD
23:05 tu3031
22:59 tu3031
22:55 Harcourt Jush7795
22:54 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 Harry Reid
22:51 tu3031
22:39 tu3031
22:38 Angie Schultz
22:34 Yosemite Sam
22:22 crosspatch
22:19 Intrinsicpilot
22:11 OldSpook