Well this process, if I've been reading it correctly, is only a formality. The Judicial Branch has already killed it, the Legislative Branch is just doing this 'repeal' because they either can't or don't want to come to terms with the fact that the Judicial Branch is flexing it's (very large) muscle.

Only the president, with permission from congress can make military law changes. It takes congressional approval, irregardless what the Judicial system says, to change military law. So no. It's not dead. If the Repub's get their way, they'll get more amendments approved, stalling then perpetually blocking Repeal permanently. Congress approved the law, congress can change that back too.

This is why DADT was not ended when those judges ruled it was unconstitutional.

thing is its been rules unconstitutional and to go aginst that ist aginst the constitution which is in fact high treason if really get down to nitty gritty. sure it worked for its time when not as tolorent but now times are differnt and needs to be repealed. as if one soldier saw a rank he wanted and one higher then him is Gay all he woudl have to do is expose it then homosexual gets banned and he has chance of being promoted. the law it self works to keep them save but its being abused now and unfair to countless warriors that protect us. its now being used to attack homosexuals and stuff.

:) on the same sheet of music. Though what you mentioned has been done before and will continue to happen until 60days after certification. The law is signed, but does not take effect until after 60 days past certification, that amendment was stuck to the bill.

Right now Republicans are asking the president not to certify, as the other two have voiced favor in signing, possibly by end of month.

The Judicial Branch can end enforcement of any law by calling it unconstitutional, regardless of which branch started it. It's their check on the other two branches.

Also, as I understand it, the Pentagon has already stopped enforcement anyways.

Not true. Sorry. Soldiers in all branches still being discharged under DADT.

Then the Associated Press (or the Pentagon) lied, because AP reported the Pentagon ordering a halt to the court cases and discharges, and the Army (for a few days anyways) attempted to defy the order.

Didn't lie, you got a piece of information that was true at the time it was posted, but changed shortly after, and neglected to follow up with situation after it changed yet again.

...It changed again? Then what happened to everyone who was admitted? Are they in limbo or were they straight-up discharged?

Discharged, under DADT. Packets being processed at the time merely halted, as they were never completely in.

...Well that's just dishonorable. "Yeah sure, you can come in! Oh wait, nevermind, we're changing our mind."

And since Congress specifically had to ask the Judicial Branch to stop, I think the Judicial Branch either already had or was about to make it de-facto illegal, even if de-jure that power rests only with Congress and the Executive Branch.

October 19th, 2010, the US military began recruiting openly homosexual applicants. A openly gay man who had been discharged under DADT was re-enlisted to the US Army.

That's what CNN told me, and I have the article right here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/19/pe.....iref=allsearch

The injunction was in fact lifted, reports were that everyone that signed up for military service was put on hold, last word todate, is that no one can serve openly LGB until 60 days following certification. Recruiters everywhere are waiting to enlist all the additional recruits. Keeping in mind sexual preference is still not asked for, nor will it be used to decide if given. The military is going to sexual preference neutrality. All thanks to the training that's been going on since February 2011.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/mili.....ask_10-21.html - - - if you'd care to read a bit more on it. I find it humorous that finding information on reversal of the injunction is rather difficult. It was apparently more news worthy when he re-started the enlistment process, that never finished. Also note that discharges ARE still being processed, only it requires TOP brass approval, the right to discharge was taken from subordinate commanders and given only to the Secretary Service Cheifs. Yes that method has slowed the process but has not stopped it. It will only stop after the 60day wait following certification, unless congress successfully amends/reverses the bill.

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/06/.....ill-being.html

Actually no, Judicial branch can call a military law unconstitutional, but until congress and the president act on it, it does not change. Judicial branch has 0 control over the armed forces. Yes, it retains the ability to call "unconstitutional" but that's it. Congress was tasked in the constitution to manage/monitor/control the military, and the President is Left Commander in Chief.

The downside here, is there is nothing what so ever in the constitution or bill of rights that gives anyone freedom of sexual preference. While it can be considered implied, it is not explicitly granted. You have to remember this document was written in a time when men were hanged for being homo, and all men were considered straight, god fearing worshipers.

Also take into consideration that soldiers, when they volunteer, give up many rights, to serve. Just how much is rarely understood by the volunteer until well after training and into first or even later years of service. That which is detrimental to the service for which you sign with, under oath and by contract, even if constitutional, is a right that the volunteer relinquishes, in part or whole.

1st amendment rights come up alot, and will always be shot down. Divulging classified information, Treason, inciting riot, protesting leadership openly by slander, attending political functions in uniform unless on duty serving, etc are all items that normally would be covered by freedom of speech. When you join up you relinquish these parts of 1st amendments and many more.

The UCMJ is a document approved by congress, the judicial branch and the president. Look it up, and see how many other constitutional rights, volunteers/draftee's give up when serving.

If that were true, the Judicial branch would have no power. << Declaring something unconstitutional is practically all they can do, and it's always been treated as a "We're shooting this down" thing before. Was that just people honoring the opinion of the courts, then?

No we've all seen what happens, a Judge makes a deceleration, it throws everything into chaos for a few days, then the judge gets overruled, and everything goes back the way it was, and everyone's like WTF! Then because the politicians see that the people want it fixed, they do it the "right" way, as the President declared, by act of Congress and signed into law by the Commander in Chief.

You weren't kidding when you said "Short"

But I agree, I don't trust jack didly squat from anyones mouth until I see action in hand. Cause until something happens it may as well be a fantasy

Oh, for some news of some genuine inroads of homosexuals being treated as just people by our fellow americans whose families we support with our taxes, labors, services, participation in this country in equal measure to the rest of them - despite us being from all races and divisions of financial class, from all professions from doctors to drug lords, lawyers and politicians to poets musicians and writers, actors, models, construction workers, stay-at-home parents, teachers and police, we are second class citizens. Whenever somebody finds a way to identify and allow legal means of allowing us privilege and protection from hate and discrimination, it's short lived or reversed almost as soon as conceived.

Blame religion.

Ever since my dad's bigoted, Baptist-based ways came between me and him, yes, I have. When a book matters more to a father than his own son, that book is evil, not the holy thing it claims to be imo.

Yup. The only reasons people view gay people as evil/wrong is because western religion has demonized homosexuality for thousands of years. Take Japan for instance. A few hundred years ago, love between two men was often considered the most pure love there was. Along comes western influence and that notion gets completely thrown out the window. It's a real shame.

Sioux (lakota) Indian culture, still alive despite the marginalization and reservation system and pressures to assimilate into wasichu society, have a word for gay men. Winkte. It is not a pejorative. They were given respect and allowed to wear women's clothing, have their own tipis with each other and so forth.

My character name Unktehila is a Lakota word, but has nothing to do with sexuality, nor am I myself any part Native American. Yet I have studied their language, visited their reservation, supported them with generous donations sufficient for them to personally thank me, read some of their text books on their myths, legends - old stories.

They made war on neighboring tribes, had assigned roles for women, a sexist society - yet tolerant of homosexuals and for thousands of years left the earth pretty much the way it was. They were the barbarians, and the Christian settlers civilized them. And what fine excuse for civilization we have today.

yet the verses they use are not logical.

leviticus is Mans law states this in mathew i think. then saddamgammora it was people doing it access and idoliseing and also lot gambled with his religion and aginst GOd and the town tryign to rape angles probly didnt help X.X [it says came form of man i think which can easly mean came form fo mankind flesh]

romans road paul was raised in old ways and newly in the new ways of christian which does not talk bad about homosexuals so on and says GOD inspired but not GODS law and there is ways in bible that clearly indicate when its GOD talking not his followers romans road area didnt follow GOD talking pattern. church goers that do this in hatred only push away people to get saved and thus doing the devils job.

if a preacher ever says gays cant goto heaven i will defintly walk out. [i may if get enough balls go bullshit and claim hes wrong and go any that beleave in Christs death on cross for our sins and savoir they can ge to heaven thing] X.x

The New Testament was written 300 years after Christ, and later. No eyewitness reports exist in those scripture, or grandparents of those who were. People lived about 30 years back then. So what do you say of something written from no direct memory of the past whatever? A STORY. Made up. Fiction. We might as well (and probably could've lived better) following the writings of Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales, or Shakespeare.

The whole of the Bible contains parts a committee decided should and should not go into it - the parts left out, the apocryphae - have stories like angels falling in love with, and conceiving children with - women; more about Mary Magdalen, and so forth. Edited so as to not confuse people as to the power of the church or the fearsome awesomeness of God... I guess.

The Church has been a center of power in Europe since the Dark Ages. Are they actually still a not-so-shadow government over the people today? Just ask the oppressed. From the Crusades to the Inquisition to modern day, religions seem to have a good excuse for 'good' people doing bad things to good people.

hence why the onlythign i truely beleave in bible is the salvation and on parts of homosexual debates ig o as cheesy as this is "What Would Jesus Do?" XD doubt he would cast out homosexuals or anything liek that.

to me were ment to be a light house in the darkest storm leading the lost souls home.

not a battle ship blowing them out of the water XD

As I recall, the New Testament was written mostly around and after 70 AD. The five major books of the New Testament (Matthew Mark Luke John Acts) may date to the 2nd century.

The FINALIZED version of the Bible, the modern version, came into being in the 300s AD after they had to go "Wait, we have too many contradicting stories, we need to create a homogeneous message."

And the Church is hardly a shadow government. People blame religion of course, but if you look at the official stances of the churches, they no longer support most of this stuff.

It's less "Religion" and more "Because this is how it's been for a long time". Religion started it, but the major denominations of Christianity and Judaism have tried to distance themselves from it. Some are even beginning to promote gay rights (or have said they wouldn't be opposed to it).

Bigots are bigots because they were influenced by other bigots. Religion may have started it, but it's no longer the cause.

welcome to matthew 10:34.

I wouldn't say blame religion. Plenty of minor religions support homosexuality, as do some members of the majority religions.

Blame the traditions of a specific civilization from the 1700s BC/BCE that went on to influence three religions. But please don't make it out to seem like everyone in those religions hates gays.

Also, should point out:

Several branches of Christianity (parts of the Anglican and the United Methodist Church and some smaller groups) are unsure how to weigh on this. Some (such as the UMC) support civil rights and even bonding-things, but simply oppose the use of the word marriage. Others (usually smaller groups) outright state it's not even a sin, because of a statement in Acts where all things were opened to the world* (and Paul simply didn't get the memo since he was a traditional jewish christian).

*This same passage is used as a reason to justify Christians eating ham but Jews avoiding it.

This is not something I would entirely blame. It is simply a strongly ingrained cultural view of men going after women and vice versa. The alternative is a thing not quite 'understood' and simply something most of them would not have even considered (Back in the time this issue was just beginning to become a more popular issue to discuss and debate)

Although its more or less harmless nature, it is a topic easily condemned (Religion, 'Nature', Reproductive Value, Old HIV Scare), and quite an awkward and uncomfortable topic for those not ingrained of adjusted to the community.


It's similar to a person who drinks their own blood or cuts themselves for the purpose of ritualistic scarring. Sure it doesn't harm anyone else, but it is still a situation most people wouldn't know how to take knowing about someone, and an issue easily disliked (Religion, 'Nature', ect.). I'm sure if someone saw you sitting on your front porch cutting pictures into your arm you'd be asked to see a doctor/asylum quite quickly.




Now homosexuality in its current, more popular standing is becoming a more accepted thing as the old ones who were raised unknowing of it die off... so one could say it's only a matter of time.

Oh FA, how I would kill for an 'edit' feature...

I'm not going into the religious aspect of it, it honestly has no place here. The fact is, the US government is allowing for openly LGB to serve, after finalization of the H.R. 2965, S. 4023. The merits or lack there of, of religion in this topic serves only to fuel contempt and trolling. The discussion was intended to help people see what's going on right now, in the government, while not attempting to go too far into the political BS surrounding the whole issue. Though I suppose that was meant to utterly fail anyway.

Anyway, I hope those watching the issue at hand are updated! Now off to AC!