DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: fatman on May 22, 2008, 08:41:32 PM
-
Federal court rules against military gays policy By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 22, 7:52 AM ET
SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.
The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.
The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.
Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.
But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.
Under the latest ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.
Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years ? two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.
She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."
The appeals court judges disagreed.
"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote.
One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."
Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.
Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."
"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"
An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.
Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."
Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."
Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues ? one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.
"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."
-
Wonderful. I am so glad to see this.
-
This is truely awfull , but the 9th is the most often overturned court of any at that level, so the "Death Knell " isn't really loud.
Still the decision could possibly stick , I wonder how we are going to reverse this decision if it does turn out that the effects are negative?
Integrateing Women into the Active combat units of the Navy has been a truely awfull failure , but one that no commander can call a failure even little bit. The ratchet has turned and going back to all male crews is not likely anymore.
Except on Submarines , where the old means of keeping the sexes apart is still working well.
Oh well , we may try this experiment and learn that effective armed services are impossible without sexual segregation , then we will do without effective defense for a few years , what could it hurt?
-
That's absurd. What this does is put the burden of proof onto the military that if they're going to discharge someone for being queer, then they need to show how that person being queer undermines the morale. If it really does undermine the morale then it will come out and the dismissal will be upheld. If it doesn't it exposes the policy for the stupid thing that it is.
So it's put up or shut up time. Either prove it causes morale problems, or shut up about it. (I mean that broadly Plane, not directed at you personally).
-
That's absurd. What this does is put the burden of proof onto the military that if they're going to discharge someone for being queer, then they need to show how that person being queer undermines the morale. If it really does undermine the morale then it will come out and the dismissal will be upheld. If it doesn't it exposes the policy for the stupid thing that it is.
So it's put up or shut up time. Either prove it causes morale problems, or shut up about it.
The effect on morale is pretty easy to understand , the effect on disapline that the integration of women into the active combat unit has had is instructive.
I was in the Navy , it would have been a mess for me to have a Cheif evaluateing my efficency and my sexual availibility at the same time , haveing women onboard ship has caused exactly this problem quite a lot.
The Military is about the only place I know where your supervision has such complete controll of your life , in the civillian world if your boss sexually harasses you you can sue him even if he is the President of the Uninted States , if you get fired for not putting out you are only fired . In the military it is worthwile to subtract this distraction as much as possible.
As far as what I have to put up , I would have left the Navy myself asap if the rules had changed this way , I don't think I am unusual enough to make this a safe bet.
-
The effect on morale is pretty easy to understand , the effect on disapline that the integration of women into the active combat unit has had is instructive.
Is it hard to prove? Because I haven't seen anything proving it yet.
I was in the Navy , it would have been a mess for me to have a Cheif evaluateing my efficency and my sexual availibility at the same time , haveing women onboard ship has caused exactly this problem quite a lot.
The problem here is with the Chief, not with you. Are you saying that it's impossible for a male Chief to evaluate the efficiency of a female subordinate without including her sexual situation? Because that's what it sounds like.
The Military is about the only place I know where your supervision has such complete controll of your life , in the civillian world if your boss sexually harasses you you can sue him even if he is the President of the Uninted States , if you get fired for not putting out you are only fired . In the military it is worthwile to subtract this distraction as much as possible.
Why is it worthwhile to institutionalize and codify bigotry and discrimination? If the Chief in the response were to sexually harass the female subordinate, does she have no recourse?
As far as what I have to put up , I would have left the Navy myself asap if the rules had changed this way , I don't think I am unusual enough to make this a safe bet.
So freedom and non-discrimination are great things to pay lip service to, but when it comes time to put it into action you'd rather leave than deal with it. Ok.
-
To the best of your recollection how many Gay folks did you serve with?
How many alcoholics?
-
[I was in the Navy , it would have been a mess for me to have a Cheif evaluateing my efficency and my sexual availibility at the same time , haveing women onboard ship has caused exactly this problem quite a lot.
The problem here is with the Chief, not with you. Are you saying that it's impossible for a male Chief to evaluate the efficiency of a female subordinate without including her sexual situation? Because that's what it sounds like.
Yes ,it has been a nightmare . Hundreds of unwanted pregnancys , thousands of accusations , I consider the experiment a failure .
A commander that admits that this policy isn't working is cutting his carreer short , Congress isn't listening for any reports of failure.
It doesn't matter whether the problem is with me of the Cheif does it? Either way it is a problem for the military effectiveness.
-
To the best of your recollection how many Gay folks did you serve with?
None whatsoever.
How many alcoholics?
6
-
if women in the military is a failure.
it is highly likely something wrong with the U.S. system
I don`t recall isreal or russia having this problem
maybe it`s the fact it`s voluntary
but very few of our soldiers look like
alona tal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alona_Tal
-
if women in the military is a failure.
it is highly likely something wrong with the U.S. system
I don`t recall isreal or russia having this problem
maybe it`s the fact it`s voluntary
but very few of our soldiers look like
alona tal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alona_Tal
What are the Isrelis doing diffrently ?
If it is working for them there must be some diffrence.
-
What are the Isrelis doing diffrently ?
If it is working for them there must be some diffrence.
Mandatory enlistment. Everyone serves.
-
What are the Isrelis doing diffrently ?
If it is working for them there must be some diffrence.
Mandatory enlistment. Everyone serves.
Well that is diffrent , I suppose that with such complete egalitarianism excluseion doesn't become an issue.
Do they ask or tell sexual orientation?
-
Do they ask or tell sexual orientation?
Doesn't matter. If you're gay, you still have to serve.
-
Do they ask or tell sexual orientation?
Doesn't matter. If you're gay, you still have to serve.
So they do not need to worry that anything that they might ever do will result in a dearth of volenteers?
I have to admit that this does solve the problems I was worried about , but it is a solution unavailible to us isn't it?
-
but if this is a issue of morale ,how were we able to allow blacks in the military this long without it being still an issue
I kinda doubt all our soldier today are non racist.
-
but if this is a issue of morale ,how were we able to allow blacks in the military this long without it being still an issue
I kinda doubt all our soldier today are non racist.
Before you join you need to be aware that you may be sleeping in the same compartment with thirty guys , and that the compartment might be 15' x 30' , this might make a racist very unhappy but generally commanders don't care how racists feel as long as they make no noise , if they make troubble it is going to be cured by the commander.
In the future we may have to tell prospective recruits that they will share showers with people who are openly gay , is this something like removeing the partition to the womens shower?
Before the Women were allowed on combat ships there was no need for partitions , sailors just learned to live with less privacy than civilians generally want.
The racists being bothered turns out to have been a tolerable problem , because after the week the worst of them are either out or grown smarter.
Is the problem of bunking with people who find you sexually attractive, really that simular to bunking that you find repellant?
-
Is the problem of bunking with people who find you sexually attractive, really that simular to bunking that you find repellant?
So what about the current closeted gays in the service? Do you really believe that there are no gay people serving their country at this moment? I don't understand the fuss, it would seem to me that if a gay man were making unwanted advances, that could be dealt with. Are you saying that there is no current machinery to do this?
The racists being bothered turns out to have been a tolerable problem , because after the week the worst of them are either out or grown smarter.
Why wouldn't/shouldn't this apply to homophobic people as well?
-
Is the problem of bunking with people who find you sexually attractive, really that simular to bunking that you find repellant?
So what about the current closeted gays in the service? Do you really believe that there are no gay people serving their country at this moment? I don't understand the fuss, it would seem to me that if a gay man were making unwanted advances, that could be dealt with. Are you saying that there is no current machinery to do this?
The racists being bothered turns out to have been a tolerable problem , because after the week the worst of them are either out or grown smarter.
Why wouldn't/shouldn't this apply to homophobic people as well?
If you and I were in ajacent racks we would be sleeping within inches of each other , on my ship I spent five years like this , if I never knew you thought of me as attractive I wouldn't be bothered , as soon as I know one of us has got to go. Which of us is it going to be?
Women on shipboard are being coped with with a lot of locked doors , this is worth doing even though on a warship a locked door is liable to kill a sailor trying to flee a fire. Can the Navy produce four diffrent types of bunking to segregate the four diffrent gender preferences?
-
Can the Navy produce four diffrent types of bunking to segregate the four diffrent gender preferences?
With the money that we pour into defense, why couldn't it? As Ami pointed out, in conscription based militaries, gays have to serve. How do those militaries get around the bunking question?
-
as soon as I know one of us has got to go.
Why is that?
-
as soon as I know one of us has got to go.
Why is that?
Same reason they never let me into the girls locker room at the gym. I am quite sure that I cold keep my hands to myself , but this seems to not be the only objection.
-
Can the Navy produce four diffrent types of bunking to segregate the four diffrent gender preferences?
With the money that we pour into defense, why couldn't it? As Ami pointed out, in conscription based militaries, gays have to serve. How do those militaries get around the bunking question?
In Isreal? With a tiny Navy .
No , redesigning ships to accomadate women has been a terrible inefficiency and has increased the cost of ship operation a lot , the situation is already hard to tolerate.
-
what a bunch of BS
political correctness makes us less effective on the battlefield
-
political correctness makes us less effective on the battlefield
Got something to back that up?
-
In Isreal? With a tiny Navy .
I may be wrong, but doesn't China have conscription? And I don't think that their Navy is exactly tiny. Are you advocating sexual segregation only in the Navy, or in all branches?
-
Same reason they never let me into the girls locker room at the gym. I am quite sure that I cold keep my hands to myself , but this seems to not be the only objection.
If it were a woman bunking next to you thinking that you were attractive, would you have the same reaction or does that pertain solely to a homosexual?
-
fatman love affairs & the battlefield dont mix
hetro or homo
if people are sleeping with each other
it makes the team less effective in battle
you cant tell me that if soldiers have their wives on the battle
front with them it would not complicate the mission
#1 allegiances would come into play
you dont want a guy covering your back that is also covering another guys back that he is sleping with
who would get the better "coverage"
yeah sure the lover wouldn't get more attention
you think in an office environment if a male boss is sleeping one of girls in the office
the girl gets the same treatment as the other girls?
yeah sure ::)
at least in an office our national security and freedom are not on the line
if 2 soldiers are trapped and laid down in an alley in Iraq
under heavy fire, maybe wounded
bleak situation, where maybe one is saveable
you dont want any part of the decision as to who to save
come down to because the commander is sleeping with John, so lets save John
and human nature says it will
the military is a killing machine
nothing is more important in the military than winning
political correctness should take a back seat to the military's important mission
we dont need your homo agenda introduced to the arena
play your games elsewhere
-
if people are sleeping with each other
it makes the team less effective in battle
The Spartans and Greeks would disagree with you. As well as quite a few other cultures.
-
fatman love affairs & the battlefield dont mix
hetro or homo
if people are sleeping with each other
it makes the team less effective in battle
you cant tell me that if soldiers have their wives on the battle
front with them it would not complicate the mission
#1 allegiances would come into play
you dont want a guy covering your back that is also covering another guys back that he is sleping with
who would get the better "coverage"
yeah sure the lover wouldn't get more attention
you think in an office environment if a male boss is sleeping one of girls in the office
the girl gets the same treatment as the other girls?
yeah sure ::)
at least in an office our national security and freedom are not on the line
if 2 soldiers are trapped and laid down in an alley in Iraq
under heavy fire, maybe wounded
bleak situation, where maybe one is saveable
you dont want any part of the decision as to who to save
come down to because the commander is sleeping with John, so lets save John
and human nature says it will
the military is a killing machine
we dont need your homo agenda introduced to the arena
play your games elsewhere
The problem with this argument is that you're assuming that because a serviceman is gay that he'll be sleeping with other servicemen. I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that, and I'm gay. Is sex between co-eds permitted in the military? I ask because I honestly don't know. It seems to me to be a bad idea for co-eds to be sleeping together, regardless of their orientation, and it seems even worse to use that supposition (that gays will sleep with their comrades in arms) as a basis to deny people the right to serve their country.
In the case that the 9th circuit ruled on, which the article was about, the servicewoman was having a relationship with a civilian, not a service member. Nor was that relationship open, someone tipped her commander off as to it. If the case was about a gay service member sleeping with another service member, I could understand your point, but in this case I can't. What's next, the military won't allow service members to have friends in their platoon, because by your argument (preferential treatment) that should legitimately be banned.
-
Same reason they never let me into the girls locker room at the gym. I am quite sure that I cold keep my hands to myself , but this seems to not be the only objection.
If it were a woman bunking next to you thinking that you were attractive, would you have the same reaction or does that pertain solely to a homosexual?
That is a good question , I am presently bunking with a female who thinks I am attractive (no small miricle that) but she insisted on marrage .If I were just slightly more repulsive this might be no issue.
Why indeed do they segregate the sexes on board a warship?
(http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/bunk02.jpg)
USS Pampanito (SS-383)
(http://www.joebuff.com/miami09t.jpg)
USS MIAMI, SSN-755, a Los Angeles-class nuclear powered fast-attack sub
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html
Post script, in finding these pictures I learned that Submarines are getting better and are only stacked three high now ,but they still have to practice "hot racking" a practice by which your bunk is only yours for an eight hour shift , it is someone eleses territory the rest of the time.
-
Ha, nice dodge Plane, but you know what I mean :D
-
fatman love affairs & the battlefield dont mix
hetro or homo
The problem with this argument is that you're assuming that because a serviceman is gay that he'll be sleeping with other servicemen.
Preferential treatment and harrassment is ALREADY a significant problem for the Armed services , they already do everything humanly possible to keep the rutting from the unwilling and the willing from meeting. It is a lot of effort that often fails .
Tell me why don't you, that Homosexuals are so much better than ordinary people that their addition to the mix will not worsen this problem?
-
Ha, nice dodge Plane, but you know what I mean :D
If you think I dodged , I must have failed to understand.
-
Tell me why don't you, that Homosexuals are so much better than ordinary people that their addition to the mix will not worsen this problem?
Whoa there. I've never claimed that they're better than ordinary people, I just don't think that we're any worse. If preferential treatment is already a problem, then why does it make sense to bring up arguments like CU4 did against homosexuals serving? From what I can understand, your argument is that the system is broken, and introducing homosexuals will only break it more. Tell me if I've got that wrong? The fact is that there are gays serving right now, right this minute in the military. Some of them are probably sleeping with other service members, some of them probably think that their bunk buddy is attractive. So what? Your solution to the broken system is not to fix the system, but to exclude any other variables. Not only does that go against everything that America stands for, it's wrong. Just because the military can't get a handle on the preferential treatment that is already ongoing is not an adequate justification to keep gays out of the military.
-
Ha, nice dodge Plane, but you know what I mean :D
If you think I dodged , I must have failed to understand.
It didn't look like you answered the question that you were responding to, though the misunderstanding could very well be my own.
-
Tell me why don't you, that Homosexuals are so much better than ordinary people that their addition to the mix will not worsen this problem?
Whoa there. I've never claimed that they're better than ordinary people, I just don't think that we're any worse. If preferential treatment is already a problem, then why does it make sense to bring up arguments like CU4 did against homosexuals serving? From what I can understand, your argument is that the system is broken, and introducing homosexuals will only break it more. Tell me if I've got that wrong? The fact is that there are gays serving right now, right this minute in the military. Some of them are probably sleeping with other service members, some of them probably think that their bunk buddy is attractive. So what? Your solution to the broken system is not to fix the system, but to exclude any other variables. Not only does that go against everything that America stands for, it's wrong. Just because the military can't get a handle on the preferential treatment that is already ongoing is not an adequate justification to keep gays out of the military.
Homosexual attraction is a mystery to me , is it less potent than the attraction that causes thousands of rapes in every state and every class of hetrosexual ?
A homosexual that can keep his secret has the right to keep his thoughts to himself nd cause no problems , but I wouldn't reccomend a military carreer , that is a long time to keep a secret , it must be a stress. But that secrecy is the essence of allowing the homosexual to walk into the bunking area where the opposite sex is not allowed.
-
this is a flaw arguement
somehow it`s assumed gay servicemen are attracted to all men.
and assumed gay service men can`t be effective military people by choosing lovers over anybody else
if you remember one of the problem with gays in the military is too many outed gays are officer grade personel
it seems that gays tend to apply upwardly more than straight personel.
remember out of all the stereotypes of gays.
underachieving is never one of them.
I never heard of any being discharged due to ability
remember the military is highly anti-gay
so it`
-
oop
it got away from me
so it`s very doubtful the military would be chicken to advertise how bad gays are in the military.
I brought up racism because it`s the same
people who are uncomfortable with a group of people
except gays are way less noticeable.
come to think of it
I don`t recall very much on sexual misconduct used on discharging of gays
I know for fact it happens
but strangely it not very publized.
very strange
-
if people are sleeping with each other
it makes the team less effective in battle
The Spartans and Greeks would disagree with you. As well as quite a few other cultures.
Perhaps , but do we know from the Spartans that Spartans were Homosexuals , or do we catch this "fact " of them from their good rivals in Athens?
-
Same reason they never let me into the girls locker room at the gym. I am quite sure that I cold keep my hands to myself , but this seems to not be the only objection.
If it were a woman bunking next to you thinking that you were attractive, would you have the same reaction or does that pertain solely to a homosexual?
Here is trying again.
Yes , no.
-
Perhaps , but do we know from the Spartans that Spartans were Homosexuals , or do we catch this "fact " of them from their good rivals in Athens?
The Spartans inherited much of their culture from the Dorians, and the Greeks from the Spartans.
Actually, Aristotle criticized their military, saying were not as effective as the Greeks because their fighters were not lovers with each other as the Greeks were. However, many other contemporary sources do document a similar pederasty arrangement in Spartans as the Dorians, Minoans, Greeks, etc all had. Most likely Aristotle's comments were an early form of propaganda.
-
Everyone knows that in a battle, people fight hardest to defend their comrades. I don;t think it makes a lot of difference if these comrades are lovers or just buddies. I really don't think that the problem is with male homosexuals as compared with male heterosexuals.
There is a problem with women, as they tend not to be so recklessly brave as men in combat. Of course, since most troops are NOT on the front lines, this does not mean that there is not a place for women in the military. Perhaps the best place for them is not front line combat.
-
Everyone knows that in a battle, people fight hardest to defend their comrades. I don;t think it makes a lot of difference if these comrades are lovers or just buddies. I really don't think that the problem is with male homosexuals as compared with male heterosexuals.
There is a problem with women, as they tend not to be so recklessly brave as men in combat. Of course, since most troops are NOT on the front lines, this does not mean that there is not a place for women in the military. Perhaps the best place for them is not front line combat.
These are Army sorts of problems , Sailors have had very little face to face combat since the invention of the Drednaught , so a ship "manned" by a crew of women would probly be just as effective as a male crewed ship.
The problems I have been speaking of occur because of the juxtaposition of the diffrent sexes in cramped quarters over long periods. It has been a big failure because young men do not ignore young women , old men don't either.
-
"Over the past 10 years more than 10,000 personnel have been discharged as a result of [Don't Ask, Don't Tell], including 800 with skills deemed 'mission critical,' such as pilots, combat engineers, and linguists. These are the very job functions for which the military has experienced personnel shortfalls. General John M. Shalikashvili, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993 when the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was enacted, no longer supports the policy because he now believes that allowing Gay men and women to serve openly in the military would no longer create intolerable tension among personnel and undermine cohesion. A recent Zogby poll supports this view. It found that three-quarters of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were comfortable interacting with Gay people."
-Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan, testifying before the House Committee on Armed Services, April 16.
Looks like the ASD under Reagan disagrees with you, along with three quarters of current servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
this is a flaw arguement
somehow it`s assumed gay servicemen are attracted to all men.
That isn't a flaw, are you allowed in the girls locker room if all the girls in there are not attractive to you?