[On Don't Ask Don't Tell being ruled unconstitutional.]
What has our judicial system come to when a female judge has standing to make a decision based on her opinion of a deleterious effect as to military environment? I’ll bet she is some college prude who has no sense about military life. I’ll apologize if wrong about having no military experience but not as far as her stupidity goes. My opinion is based on WWII experience when my platoon sgt in basic training told many of his teenage trainies to stay away from an older ex bank clerk(good stories about this guy).
67 comments
Hey, wait til you hear this, because it will rock your world. Females are now allowed to leave the house AND vote! And what's even better is that the world is not coming to an end!!!
I know... how is that possible???
Here we see a post that begins with bigoted, sexist outrage, simmers through some ignorance, and settles into a calm nostalgia for the days of guilt-free homophobia.
@John_in_Oz "You meant trainees, but were thinking 'trannies', right? :)"
Fun fact : in French, "traînée" means "slut".
Why are these people all of a sudden for Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Back when Clinton was trying to pass it, these people said that it would utterly destroy the military. Now all of a sudden it's some sort of sacred cow to them.
My opinion is based on WWII experience when my platoon sgt in basic training told many of his teenage trainies to stay away from an older ex bank clerk(good stories about this guy).
And here was me thinking militarisation is supposed to get men to set aside any differences, work together and trust each other. Evidently I didn't get the memo that sowing division in the ranks was considered beneficial.
OH NOES, give a female the right to come out of the kitchen, and look what happens! Them nasty fags start wanting rights, and she gives them to 'em!
Also, @nutbunny:
@Creedence Leonore Gielgud
Why are these people all of a sudden for Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Back when Clinton was trying to pass it, these people said that it would utterly destroy the military. Now all of a sudden it's some sort of sacred cow to them.
Gotta love their ability to shift the goalposts. Eventually, they'll say that they were for gay rights all along and that they were just misunderstood.
This guy must be quite elderly... two of my great-grandfathers fought in WWII, and if they were alive today they would be 99 years old and 86 years old, respectively. And my great-grandfather would probably laugh at this guy- he told me stories about being in the military. He knew a guy in the military who was gay, and that guy was one of the best fighters there was.
He does not get it.
Knowledge of military life is completely irrelevant, or any other subjective implications of her ruling.
What matters is whether or not Don't Ask Don't Tell is constitutional. If its not, it goes away, and it should never have existed in the first place.
These people don't seem to understand how the rule of law works. It's not optional, regardless of how inconvenient it might be.
Regardless, none of her experience matters, except for her experience in constitutional law. Simple as that.
Itkovian
Congratulations for being able to use a computer at your age sir, and thanks for dealing with Hitler. That said many gays and lesbians did serve honorably alongside you, you just didn't know because their patriotism and love of country forced them to lie about it. Likewise, many cowards wore panties and talked with fake lisps during their draft inductions and physicals. Now, let me ask you this: who would you rather have served with sir?
And... you think that your military experience 65 years ago somehow relates to today's military? I was in 20 years ago and would probably be surprised at how different it is now.
Here's a shocker for you: They now allow black people to serve in the military. As officers, too.
"What has our judicial system come to when a female judge has standing to make a decision based on her opinion of a deleterious effect as to military environment? I’ll bet she is some college prude who has no sense about military life. I’ll apologize if wrong about having no military experience but not as far as her stupidity goes. My opinion is based on WWII experience when my platoon sgt in basic training told many of his teenage trainies to stay away from an older ex bank clerk(good stories about this guy)."
Just three words that completely destroy your argument as a whole, to say nothing of your sexism, and your 'opinion' (based on WWII):
Rosie the Riveter.
Presence or lack of military experience is irrelevant. It's a constitutional matter before it's a military one. As a judge and a representative of the Judiciary, she's perfectly qualified to rule on it. It's not like there's a clause that says, "Judges may rule unless they don't have any personal experience with the issue at hand in which case, they have no power."
On behalf of Leonard Matlovich, I would like to kick your ass. TSgt Matlovich's grave stone reads, "When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."
Hey buckwheat, I'm ex-Army, and I think DADT should be gotten rid of.
Massive fail on your part.
If a soldier is loyal and in physical and mental shape to fight, then by all means, let them, whether they're men, women, straight, gay. If they aren't, you don't. I'd think even if ninety-nine percent of gays were unfit to fight for some bizarre reason, that would be no reason to disallow the one percent who were. This argument also applies to those who wish to exclude women or blacks, and may be applied not just to the military but to any group or organisation.
Has anyone mentioned the Sacred Band of Thebes yet? Rare example, but many, many gays have served in the military over history.
What has our judicial system come to when a female judge has standing to make a decision based on her opinion of a deleterious effect as to military environment?
The judge didn't make her decision "based on her opinion of a deleterious effect as to military environment". She ruled it was unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments.
The "deleterious effect on military readiness" argument has been made by all sorts of kibitzing bystanders in Internet forums and newspapers. But it wasn't made in court by the actual defendant in the case, the US government. The judge can only consider the arguments made in court by the litigants. She can't help the defendant by bringing in her own arguments that she gleaned from the outside media.
jsonitsac: "Likewise, many cowards wore panties and talked with fake lisps during their draft inductions and physicals."
You know, Ed Wood Jr. claimed that he wore a brassiere and panties underneath his uniform during his service in the marines. He claimed to have participated in the Battle of Guadalcanal like that. I'm not sure exactly how distinguished his military career was, but that was a major turning point in the Pacific theater, so just taking part in it should count for something. He lost his front teeth, and hurt his leg during combat too.
THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. They've been there for a very long time. The only difference is that now they'll be free to be open about it if they so desire. I'm betting, though, that very little will actually change; maybe a handful will start doing things differently, but the rest will likely just do what they've already been doing. It's surprisingly difficult to know if someone's gay unless they outright tell you (well, okay, depends on the situation, but yeah).
Here's the thing noinfringers2, gays and lesbians already serve in the armed forces, and have since the Revolution. In fact guess what, when the military desegregated by race a survey done showed the majority of service men where against it. Here is a link with it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34612500/Final-Race-Wonk-Room
And Truman went ahead with it anyways, just like Obama should do.
I asked my father, who served in WWII, about this some time ago. He laughed and said that of course there were gay people in the services (I later found out that one of his best friends was one of them). Because otherwise too many people would have got out of conscription by pretending to be gay.
Plus in WWII, SOE who sent agents into France recruited from people who spoke French. Most of whom were in the fashion trade. Because of this, most male SOE agents in France were gay. And they did the bravest job of all.
Cuz wez all knowds that females don't gots no sensibles.
Did you ever think that maybe your platoon sgt. might have been wrong, might have exagerated for the sake of a "good" story.
I'll bet you're a homophobic, college drop-out with an overly inflated view of your military sense, but that's not as far as your stupidity goes.
This one's moniker, noinfringers2, implies that he was previously banned. My guess is that it has something to do with lying about a mythical record of military service.
I think you're a liar, noinfringers2.
@Creedence Leonore Gielgud
The difference is, I guess, that Ed Wood wasn't gay, he was just a crossdresser. I don't think that's covered under DADT.
Anecdotes! = Data may be worthy of respect, but it doesn't demand it. No, your military experience may make you more experienced in regards to war, but it by no means makes you an expert, anymore than a being fisherman means you qualify as a marine biologist (or vice versa). Especially when your anecdotal knowledge is limited to 60 years in the past, and skewed by the biases of the time and your biases of present.
Fucking ex bank clerks, they have a lot to answer for, not least the harm they have done to our military. All that counting and what-not, it's unnatural and not God's way.
The greatest unspoken of hero of WW2 was a man called Alan Turing.
Deciphered German Codes with his "new fangled computer".
Was gay...
Your WW2 experience means dick since he is responsible for ending the war in europe by his actions saving millions of tonnes of shipping and intercepting german communications and deciphering them no matter what they did. A thousand humans couldn't do what he did...
Like a few others, I'm finding it hard to believe that you served in World War II. Vietnam, I'd believe (only 30-ish years ago, making you probably around 50). Korea would be kind of a stretch (60-ish years ago, putting you in your 80's. Kinda unusal for folks your age to be using the internet, but not unheard of).
World War II, on the other hand? 65 freakin' years ago!! . Putting you well into your 80's, if not your 90's. I'm sorry, but I'm finding your claim hard to believe.
Although I don't agree with his views, maybe we should make allowances on account of his extreme old age. This is undoubtedly a very old man who still holds to opinions that were mainstream in his era....doesn't make those opinions right or acceptable today, I know. But maybe you just can't teach old dogs new tricks.
That said....things have moved on, grandad. It ain't 1945 anymore, and your generation is no longer running the show.
So because there was an older guy who used to work at a bank in 1942, gays must continue to hide their identities from the nation that has asked them to risk their lives in its service today?
I bet you think Andy Rooney's a hoot.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
