Yes, Under existing rules. Why do you think DADT was necessary in the first place?? It was to stop the prosecutions that were taking place simply because gays were ACTING like gays and exhibiting Gay mannerisms.
DADT allowed gays to serve without their overt mannerisms used against them .... THAT is now at an end. They will all be subject now to the whim and fancy of just what each and every different command deigns is correct and or acceptable. Gays could serve under DADT as long as they did not SAY "I am Gay", that protection is now (or soon to be) gone. There are NO equal protection laws in the UCMJ. On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > *False twisted pretzel pundit logic. * > ** > *The point of DADT repeal is to allow gays to serve.* > > *-The Other Annointed One > * > On 10/13/10, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Without DADT you will revert to this Art. 117 clause, >> >> Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful >> words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter >> shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. >> >> And the standard is that within the (each and every different) >> command. A gentle hip roll or a floppy wrist is more than enough.... >> This section is as old as the military and has been upheld by the >> Supremes... >> >> With DADT Gays were protected because sexual proclivity was >> inadmissible. They now LOSE the right to NOT answer that question. >> >> Yes, Tommy, a real victory by the blind and the stupid. >> >> >> >> On Oct 13, 9:51 am, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Judge acts while others debate Pentagon gay policy >> > >> > By PETE YOST (AP) – 8 hours ago >> > >> > WASHINGTON — A federal judge's ruling that the military must stop its >> "don't >> > ask, don't tell" policy comes amid conflicting concerns of gays who >> think >> > the government is moving too slowly to let them serve openly and >> Pentagon >> > officials who believe that moving too quickly might disrupt a military >> > engaged in war. >> > >> > Gay rights groups have said they are disappointed that legislation to >> > override the ban is likely to languish in Congress until next year, when >> > Democrats could have fewer seats and less power to override Republican >> > objections. >> > >> > Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike >> > Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer, have supported lifting the >> ban >> > on gays serving openly. But Gates and Mullen also have warned that they >> > would prefer to move slowly. >> > >> > Meantime, despite a federal judge's ruling in San Diego on Tuesday, the >> > battle in the courts over gays in the military may be far from over. >> > >> > The Justice Department's first response may well be another trip to the >> > courtroom of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in San Diego to seek >> a >> > stay, or temporary freeze, of her ruling. If Phillips turns down the >> > request, the Justice Department likely turn to the federal appeals court >> in >> > California. >> > >> > It was unclear whether Phillips' injunction against the 17-year-old >> policy >> > on gays in the military would affect any ongoing cases. >> > >> > Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, traveling with Gates in Hanoi, >> Vietnam, >> > said, "We have just learned of the ruling and are now studying it. We >> will >> > be in consultation with the Department of Justice about how best to >> > proceed." >> > >> > If the government does not appeal, the injunction cannot be reversed and >> > would remain in effect. If it does appeal, that would put the >> administration >> > in the position of continuing to defend a law it opposes. >> > >> > With so much uncertainty, it also was unclear whether the ruling would >> have >> > any immediate effect on the midterm election campaigns that so far have >> > focused far more on economic than national security issues. >> > >> > Gay rights groups warned gay troops not to disclose their identity for >> now. >> > Aaron Tax, the legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense >> Network, >> > said he expects the Justice Department to appeal the case to the U.S. >> 9th >> > Circuit Court of Appeals. >> > >> > "Service members must proceed safely and should not come out at this >> time," >> > Tax said in a statement. >> > >> > Gates, a Republican, and Mullen face disagreement among the most senior >> > general officers on whether lifting the ban would cause serious >> disruption >> > at a time when troops are fighting in Afghanistan and winding down a >> long >> > battle in Iraq. >> > >> > For example, the incoming Marine commandant, Gen. Joseph Amos, and his >> > predecessor, Gen. James Conway, both have told Congress that they think >> most >> > Marines would be uncomfortable with the change and that the current >> policy >> > works. >> > >> > In part to resolve the question of how the troops feel, Gates has >> ordered a >> > study due Dec. 1 that includes a survey of troops and their families. >> > >> > Obama agreed to the Pentagon study. Obama also worked with Democrats to >> > write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the >> > Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop >> > morale wouldn't suffer. That legislation passed the House but was >> blocked in >> > the Senate by Republicans. >> > >> > Democrats could revive the legislation in Congress' lame-duck session >> after >> > the Nov. 2 elections. >> > >> > Family Research Council President Tony Perkins accused Phillips of >> "playing >> > politics" with national defense. >> > >> > "Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance >> a >> > liberal social agenda, disregarding the views of all four military >> service >> > chiefs and the constitutional role of Congress," he said. >> > >> > Perkins urged the Justice Department "to fulfill its obligation to >> defend >> > the law vigorously through the appeals process" and said "Congress >> should >> > make clear that it will not tolerate this judicial activism." >> > >> > Gates has said the purpose of his study isn't to determine whether to >> change >> > the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which is something he says is probably >> > inevitable but for Congress to decide. Instead, the study is intended to >> > determine how to end the policy without causing serious disruption. >> > >> > Coming just three weeks before voters go to the polls, Tuesday's ruling >> > seemed unlikely to force a final weeks' change of strategy or message as >> > candidates pounded home their plans to help put back to work the 15 >> million >> > Americans lacking jobs. >> > >> > Polls suggest the economy is driving voters' choices, pushing national >> > security and social issues down on their list of concerns. >> > More: >> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxIyhWP4o0LCQi15rYE... >> > >> > -- >> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >> > Have a great day, >> > Tommy >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > -- > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > Have a great day, > Tommy > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Mark M. Kahle H. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
