Let Them Serve
"Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday (Oct. 13) of 'enormous consequences' for men and women in uniform if a judge's order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military is allowed to stand..The Obama administration may well ask for a stay of the ruling while it appeals...."
Associated Press, Oct. 14, 2010
After a federal judge in California found that the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy infringes on the fundamental rights of homosexuals, Gates said that complying with the ruling "requires careful preparation and lot of training." Gates, who has been Secretary of Defense since his appointment by then President George W Bush in 2007, has had three years to prepare and train the military to halt all discrimination against homosexuals, but apparently waited until now to even begin.
Unlike Secretary Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder, I favor immediate compliance with the order and oppose appealing it. I contend that a person's sexuality has no bearing on military service, so the policy of excluding homosexuals from the service was wrong-headed from the start. In fact, during the years of the draft (1941-1973, with a brief postwar gap), the policy discriminated against straight men by forcing them to serve while excusing homosexuals.
As Commander-in-Chief of all American armed forces, President Barack H Obama could issue a general order halting all actions based on homosexuality in accordance with the court order. I do not believe that any other party would have the standing to appeal the decision. Then we would see if the "enormous consequences" envisioned by Secretary Gates really occurred.
One might contend that unless the decision is upheld by the US Supreme Court, a future president could reinstate the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which case the question could be re-litigated in a different federal district court, perhaps with a different outcome.
I would respond that once the practice of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces is established for several years, their service will be accepted without dispute, and the whole issue will disappear. Future presidents will have no incentive to re-ignite the controversy. If this prediction turns out wrong, there will be plenty of time then to pursue the issue through the courts, this time based upon actual evidence of consequences, not mere opinion.
If President Obama is really as radical and leftist as some say, why doesn't he just let this ruling stand and implement it now?
Associated Press, Oct. 14, 2010
After a federal judge in California found that the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy infringes on the fundamental rights of homosexuals, Gates said that complying with the ruling "requires careful preparation and lot of training." Gates, who has been Secretary of Defense since his appointment by then President George W Bush in 2007, has had three years to prepare and train the military to halt all discrimination against homosexuals, but apparently waited until now to even begin.
Unlike Secretary Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder, I favor immediate compliance with the order and oppose appealing it. I contend that a person's sexuality has no bearing on military service, so the policy of excluding homosexuals from the service was wrong-headed from the start. In fact, during the years of the draft (1941-1973, with a brief postwar gap), the policy discriminated against straight men by forcing them to serve while excusing homosexuals.
As Commander-in-Chief of all American armed forces, President Barack H Obama could issue a general order halting all actions based on homosexuality in accordance with the court order. I do not believe that any other party would have the standing to appeal the decision. Then we would see if the "enormous consequences" envisioned by Secretary Gates really occurred.
One might contend that unless the decision is upheld by the US Supreme Court, a future president could reinstate the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which case the question could be re-litigated in a different federal district court, perhaps with a different outcome.
I would respond that once the practice of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces is established for several years, their service will be accepted without dispute, and the whole issue will disappear. Future presidents will have no incentive to re-ignite the controversy. If this prediction turns out wrong, there will be plenty of time then to pursue the issue through the courts, this time based upon actual evidence of consequences, not mere opinion.
If President Obama is really as radical and leftist as some say, why doesn't he just let this ruling stand and implement it now?
Labels: homosexual, military
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 6:45 AM
1 Comments:
So will the homosexuals get separate bunks and showers as do women? If not, why not?
What "fundamental rights" of homosexuals had been infringed upon? Mr. Glaser has not listed those rights.
Anyone who has been in the miltary knows that the individual rights of every military person is infinged upon. A person in the military cannot wear what they want to wear, cannot do what they want to do, and do not even have the "fundamental right" of free speech.
The whole point of the military is that one gives up one's "fundamental rights" when one enters service. The military sevice could not function if the individuals retained their "fundamental rights."
What happens when the homosexuals demand separate bunks and showers because of their "fundamental rights"?
What happens when the homosexuals demand conjugal rights as part of their fundamental rights?
What happens when so-called "fundamental rights" conflict with military protocol, as they must?
Doesn't it infringe on the fundamental rights of people who are 6'2" when they are not allowed to to fly airplanes in the military. Currently such people are not allowed to fly fighter jets. They do not make fighter jet seats that large, but doesn't that infringe on the "fundamental rights" rights of larger men or women? They could make the planes larger.
I am not against homosexuals, I just do not understabd how the US constitution and the Bill of Rights can be applied to military and yet maintain an effective military.
And if one makes a law that the military personell have "fundamental rights" then where does this end? Military discipline cannot exist at the same time as guaranteeing "fundamental rights".
Post a Comment
<< Home