Finally a Victory for Gays Using the Bill of Rights, Let Them Serve

October 13, 2010


Comments

15 Responses to “Finally a Victory for Gays Using the Bill of Rights, Let Them Serve”

  1. Lanche on October 13th, 2010 11:53 am

    Congratulations your in the Army now!!!!

  2. Chris on October 13th, 2010 12:30 pm

    First, “While more than 12,500 people have been forced out of the military…,” how many of those were homosexuals that signed a contract to serve in the military, that used the “Don’t ask don’t tell.” rule to their advantage so that they could get “kicked” out of the military because they decided that they did not want to fulfill the obligation of their contract. Please tell all of the story, and do not sway the numbers and statistics so that they sway an audience in to your favor.

    Second, I hope that the judge also allows all existing service members to be honorable discharged with full pension and benefits if they so desire. To change the rules for one party, and not allow another party to opt out after the rules have been changed is not fair to them. Currently military members signed on under an understanding of what was to be expected. And that was that homosexuals were not allowed in the military.

  3. bstone on October 13th, 2010 12:31 pm

    The article is surely written by a homosexual who has never had to spend months on end on a small ship or submarine in close quarters, it is wrong to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, it will lead to a breakdown of military discipline and many courts martials……..

  4. zapperz on October 13th, 2010 12:42 pm

    As a former military officer, I am not interested in having men and women in my troops that are dysfuntional as they try to rationalize un natural life style. Thats just as bad as having a soldier that fear prevents them from carrying out a mission. Furthermore, there are enough troops that oppose homosexuals that I fear many of the gays would be shot by friendly fire.. carry that on to the next step..trial for murder of gays in milary. A gay judge should be excluded from ruling on this since they are biased from the beginning. If gays want to serve they should stay in the closet!! It is that simple. Being openly gay in the military is not the place to show your true colors. You want to be a soldier, fight the homo tendency and see if you can do that.

  5. Roy Owenby on October 13th, 2010 12:54 pm

    It’s about time that someone stood up and said no to the bigots. I served in the military, and one of the guys in my shop was gay. We all liked him. In fact, he was the smartest technician in the group. We did know that if he admitted his preference, he would (at that time) be kicked out or even court martialed. it seems like the bigot barriers get eliminated one at a time. First, Native Americans couldn’t serve, then African Americans, then women and finally gays. So what group is next; left handers. It”s amazing how much the Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights have been ignored under some phony pretense. I know the bigots are not going away, but I do hope rational thinking people will continue to stand up this time.

  6. ArmyVet on October 13th, 2010 1:13 pm

    It has never been about a gay soldier being a bad soldier. It is the same reason women currently can’t serve in combat arms roles. I am not saying they can’t participate in combat, I am saying that they cannot hold a job title that is combat related. They are limited to the service and support roles of the us armed forces. Is this right? That is a whole different topic that gets open up with these allowing gays to serve openly.

    The combat arms community was designed to put only the males in “the front lines” due to the physiological harm to a male from seeing a woman killed in combat (the primal instinct to protect your women). Also women who have seen combat are 4 times more likely to have PTSD issues from the same experience as their male counterparts.

    Combat arms tend to live in tight quarters for extended periods of time with limited personal hygiene items like toilets and showers.

    I am one for equality and if you open gays to serve then you have to allow women to be part of the combat arms. In doing that you will increase the risk or rape and other sexual crimes. Is the armed force ready for this kind of challenge? From my time in the service I think it is achievable, but will take the first few a lot of thick skin and probably 10 years to see a change in the mind set of the troops in the service today.

    One last thing is the armed service holds people from serving for all types of reasons and they should not be told by a judge that they have to do this. Rather it is up to congress to make that call since our armed services report to the Commander and Chief.

  7. lifeartist on October 13th, 2010 2:16 pm

    I am shocked at the attitude of some people who claim to have served in the military, yet are obviously anti-gay. What did you serve to protect? Equal rights for some? NO, or at least if you were serving the United States it should have been Equal rights for ALL. That said, I have always wondered why the military finds it necessary to take away all semblance of privacy for new soldiers anyway. I would think that simple things like dividers in showers, sleeping quarters, etc would serve to make the military better all round. Guess thats because I can see, as a long time married gal, that things like snoring can effect even the best of relationships. Yeah, yeah, I know that in times of war things like that are not always possible, but in war do you think anyone really thinks about sexual orientation as an important thing? I would hope they would be more concerned about things like the person next to you aim and reaction time etc. And yes, many other countries have openly gay military soldiers serving their nations, without issue. Are we still that backward???

  8. lifeartist on October 13th, 2010 2:20 pm

    Armyvet, if letting women serve in combat opens it up to rape then I say, you would be better served to screen your hetrosexual males better. Rape is a criminal act. Criminals belong in jail, not the military. Stop your scare tactics.

  9. SemperFi0311 on October 13th, 2010 3:51 pm

    What a load of half-educated, left wing bull. Full of highly biased, deceptive half truths, and holes. “Homophobia”, dangerous? Being gay is disgusting, unnatural, and just plain wrong. If there’s anything that’s dangerous it’s that. By the way isn’t “forced acceptance” also bigotry?

  10. Noel H. on October 13th, 2010 4:07 pm

    Will gays start cohabitating while in the military? Will there be sexual tensions among gays who are attracted to each other while in the military service? Will the gays be separated from the straight? Can a gay person make a sworn promise not to be attracted or come-on to a straight soldier and will they keep that promise? Wow. Will the gays promise not to bring drama into the military?

    Why not ask the straight men and women in the military and take it from there? I have a feeling they want to have the status quo remain. Fighting for your life is bad enough, but should a soldier have to worry about bending over to pickup his rifle? Having to kill to survive against the enemy is too much stress for one soldier already please do not make it worse.

  11. MACDONALDBANK, Washington, D.C. on October 13th, 2010 4:14 pm

    There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity. Civilization goes back more than 2 million years; 1,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews and 1,998,000 years pre-dating the myth of christianity which is a mere 2010 years old. In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity – a fantasy – which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world.

    I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Onward christian soldiers; I think not. Such absolute drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross. One should appreciate each day of life and not expect another and if there is it might be given by a God of Love.

    The Vatican basically supported Hitler and religion is responsible for more corruption and violence in the world. Pope Ratzinger was involved in the Nazi youth. The Pope with his blatant witchcraft related to the bible and its hateful beliefs; tries to rule with extreme prejudice against a world … that may fall victim to religions’ absolute evil. Many theologians state quite correctly that the birth; crucifixion; resurrection and other elements of christianity actually didn’t even happen! The pope is running a bigger fraud than Madoff’s $50 billion ripoff. Today’s evangelical extremists are like the nazis who cast others into ovens & are actually supremacists – who practice their bogus hocus pocus – and are trying to suppress and deprive others of their happiness and their legal rights in an open and proud society. Bring back the period when they threw the christians to the lions.

    Einstein stated in a letter recently auctioned that the bible was a collection of primitive legends. He said believing in God was childish and he as a Jew is no different than another person and are not chosen by God. Do you want to be lambs at the slaughter or be wise and reject religious cultist manipulation? Mean & nasty; run by evil and bogus religious cults from Rome or wherever. Is this the world you want? The pope talks about ending prejudice and hate; what a hypocrite! Religion is a crutch for the insecure. Appreciate every day and if there is no tomorrow; then know that you were fortunate to have lived on this earth!

    This bogus religious filth should be banned. It exists as a tax exempt structure which discriminates against human rights. The pope, bishops and mormons are cult members promoting discrimination against minorities. That bogus black book called the bible should be banned. Religion and the churches should now be exposed as a bigoted structure that gets away with hate mongering. Love between two guys or girls existed long before these cults existed. By enjoying their tax exempt status and benefits from the state it also puts them at the mercy of state; to be forced to adhere to the human rights laws. Religion is thriving like a cancerous growth on society that should be stopped in its tracks; outlawed & banned.

    The Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chretien told the Vatican that there was to be no cross erected over the Canadian Parliament buildings figuratively speaking; when the Pope demanded the Prime Minister go against gay rights. An Alberta bishop had the audacity to say that The Canadian Prime Minister would go to hell for going against the church. Such outrageous evil threats. The Right Honourable Prime Minister in return; basically told the Pope to go to Hell! The Honourable Irwin Cotler, Canadian Minister of Justice, stood for equal rights for the gay community. With reference to protecting the children: The Honourable Hedy Fry, member of the Canadian Liberal Parliament, who happens to be a doctor who delivered many babies; spoke eloquently to defend the rights of babies being born and stated that she was in fact defending their rights by speaking on behalf of equal rights for the children and youth of the future — defending their integrity and dignity. Minority rights must be decided by a dignified judicial system and/or a compassionate government.

    United States is supposedly fighting for democracy but within the U.S. they treat gays like secondary citizens. Being black or being gay is just as natural. If blacks or women’s rights were cast to the masses to decide … then the majority or lunatic fringe in this case — has the advantage to decide minority rights. The annual economic impact of lgbt travelers is about $63 billion in the U.S. alone.

    A great story pertains to a boy at a catholic school in Oshawa, Ontario who wanted to take his boyfriend to his school prom. The evil catholic school forbid this. A father of one of the boys is an employee with General Motors Canada and the courageous union leader Buzz Hargrove stood up for the boys’ rights. The boy took his case through the courts and because the evil catholic school was benefiting from government funding which demands equal rights void of discrimination; the judge ordered the school to allow the two young boys to attend together. Their limo arrived at their prom with adoring onlookers.

    Tell them to take that cross and shove it where the sun don’t shine and pay their taxes along the way before they take that cross down forever with its final station; extinction. It is written; so therefore it shall be? We are the chosen people? Such a wicked fantasy. To see the religious lunatics manipulate government and our lives is shameful.

    To think of Matthew Shepard choking on his own blood after being savagely beaten; virtually sanctioned by the church is evil beyond comprehension; yet is the same as boys being bullied into suicide; most likely being supported by the bullies parents’ religious cults. Bigotry and hatemongering against gays should be banned. It is a sometimes rare occurrence to fall in Love and to hold that person in your heart and be loved in return … it is something that should be celebrated! If it is between two guys or girls all the better. It takes even more courage to defend that LOVE!

    My father fought at the front on D-Day in Normandy … through the Battle of the Scheldt to Germany and grandfather was a Sgt. Major at Vimy. My Dad who was a catholic — is alive today at 87 and doesn’t believe in santa claus — an easter bunny or any of that bogus cross related filth.

  12. Stan james on October 13th, 2010 4:30 pm

    DADT is justt another version of segregation as it was used against blacks. And DADT is supported by the same corrupt religious culture of christianity that gave3 us slaver4y, the kkk, and segregatioin.

    And what is the problem – gays are already showering , living, sh!&ing, fighting and dying besides str8s.

    This law is just another example of legalized hatred. It must end. And if the Obama admin fights it, and doesn’ end DADt, not just the gays but the two hundred million good people that support gays being treated as equals should tell the dems to go to hell. We’ll deal with the Nazi repugnicans, but we won’t deal with the say one thing do another dems

    And re the family research council, it is headed by a self hating gay, and his sidekick is most likely the same. As well as being a baptist minister – the worst of the worst of the haters in the name of God.

    Its almost always that way

  13. Gay hate: Crimes; Faces & Stories. - Page 2 - PriusChat Forums on October 14th, 2010 11:57 am

    [...] in this day and age Since you brought up DADT, i thought I'd throw this link out there: Finally a Victory for Gays Using the Bill of Rights, Let Them Serve | ChattahBox News Blog It's days are numbered, that's for sure. As for the topic of kissing in public/on TV, etc… I [...]

  14. Finally a Victory for Gays Using the Bill of Rights, Let Them Serve | Rubytall News on October 21st, 2010 2:26 am

    [...] hocus pocus cast [...]

  15. dave on October 27th, 2010 2:52 pm

    I wonder how many of those that are truly for the ability of a gay man or women to stand up, have actually ever served their country? I do not see the reasoning behind why there is such a strong push for gays to be open while serving? I could careless about a soldiers sexual orientation. The commitment to serve trumps all, and at this time in American history we need to be a cohesive as possible. It should not matter what the idealist at CNN believe, they should be polling the men and women that are most directly effected, that being the Armed Forces.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.