I be honest. I ain't got time right now to do a post on this issue.
But I have to, because of some dipstick Judge in California, who decided her power is greater than that of Congress.
I don't understand he ruling. I haven't read it, and probably won't. She made her decision first, and then pulled some sort of legal 'reasoning' out of her hindquarters to support it the best she could. So who cares what she says to support her "impartial' decision.
The Judge was Virginia Phillips. This is her bio.
Berkley Law School. That kind of explains her fuzzy thinking doesn't it? I just wonder who it was who bought her this seat from Clinton?
You tell me; how does banning gays in the military violate their free speech rights? Because they can't 'TELL' anyone they are gay?
So? The United States Military isn't a standard less organization. Each standard has a reason. What's next? Because the Army won't allow blind snipers they are again in violation of the 14th Amendment? What other sort of qualification will next be on the chopping block to reduce our military readiness?
Hell, I want to be a damn Navy Seal. The fact that I can't stand water shouldn't disqualify me. It's a meaningless standard that violates my 14th Amendment rights. And that they won't let me enlist because I'm 50 does too.
If the Joint Chiefs, the President and the Congress all have determined that being openly homosexual is not conductive to good order and discipline, then who is this idiot in a robe, who probably has never been closer to the Amy than when she listens to that dippy song about the Kent State shootings 40 years ago, to decide otherwise?
Over turn the policy, that's fine. We appeal and a higher court is able to determine that she was full of crap and everybody goes home happy.
Why the injunction to stop the policy? Injunctions are only supposed to be issued if there is significant evidence of harm to a party. I still don't see it.
Oh well; in January we can not only reinstate the policy, we can impeach her and send her back to where ever it was Clinton pulled her from to sit on the bench.
One other thing that bothers me in this discussion too is how they always manage to trot out somebody who talks about how well they served their country while gay, and it didn't cause a discipline issue.
Duh. It was because NOBODY ASKED AND NOBODY TOLD.
Who are the stupid dipsticks who actually fall for that?
You may have gathered from my tone that I am PISSED.
There is ONE entity on the face of this Earth that can protect us from a war on our soil; the United States Military. I don't like some damned idiotic judge messing with military policy and what very well could affect military readiness, because she "FEELS" it is the "Right thing to do". Based on her years of military service I suppose?
Edited and added:
I am also reminded by a friend that DADT was developed because the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires discharge for any member found to be homosexual, and now that DADT has been declared void and not to be enforced, any gay member can be summarily discharged.
Talk about your unintended consequences.
And this judge was too un-informed to even realize what her injunction did.
49 minutes ago