Integrity, Honor, and Courage. Our Military Heads and their Commander in Chief should look deep into themselve and find some measure of these attributes. How could this be allowed to happen. "Sirs, have you no decency at long last" This is not a subject to play your best political game with. You're hurting Good Soldiers, our military, and our standing as a FREE NATION! How can this still be happening?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/22/ … l?hpt=Sbin
Okay, for those who are not up on current news or information, your post makes absolutely no sense.
You do not say why this person was discharged from the Military.
Are you insinuating that he was gay? And, thus was discharged because of this sexuality.
Please do explain.... or at least post a link to an article you have read explaining it, if you are not going to explain it yourself.
Just a thought.
Don't ask don't tell and he told.
He didn't have to he could have kept quiet and had a long and distinguished career.
He knew the rule and came out anyway.
Very courageous thing to do I agree, but not a smart thing if you want a career in the military.
I understand your point. However, this law is in the process of being repealed. Why would the Joint Chief and the President allow this solder to be discharged NOW? It feels like a slap in the face to me. It looks like an intentional end run around the congress and the will of the people.
Thank you Jim. Appreciate the heads up on the topic. Now, I know not to come back here.
The whole "Don't ask, don't tell" thing is utterly ridiculous. There's not even anything else one can say about it. It should be done away with and that's that.
But I'm not surprised or disappointed that he was relieved of duty after appearing on Kathy Griffin's show and handcuffing himself to the White House. I mean, come on!
Yea...that was a bit much. But, my point is the timing. And, has any other gay soldier been discharged since the repeal? It seems like an act of disrespect for the American people.
The discharge of thousands of people from the military because of their sexuality over the past 16 years has generated strong criticism that it is diminishing US military strength at a time when the country can hardly afford it.
The Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns make onerous demands on manpower, and relations remain tense with Iran and North Korea. But the army has discharged 59 gay Arabic linguists and nine gay Farsi linguists in the last five years, according to the Service members Legal Defense Network. Britain, Israel and dozens of other countries allow gay personnel to serve openly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju … y-military
Technically, it appears Lt. Choi was not singled out for discrimination/firing solely because of being gay.
He attended a rally and chained himself to the fence outside the White House.
So he was arrested as a rabble-rousing protestor.
Conduct unbecoming an officer, I guess.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
Frankly, I think he has set back the repeal movement by his actions.
Is Kathy Griffin the only celebrity they could get?
At least they have a good theme song!
What's wrong with that?
Interpreters are easy to replace.
It's not like they're highly trained or specialized or anything.
Funny how that question is never addressed by the President or the Joint Chiefs. The military(our tax dollars could have gone towards training most of that military talent they're throwing away)is discharging vital personnel. The enforcement of this law is an act of stupidity, and I dont think our military should be in the hands of fools.
I honestly don't understand how one branch of the federal government can exempt itself from another branch's laws.
Every other employer in the countr has to abide by EEOC non-discrimination rules. How come the military doesn't???
I don't think gay people are protected under federal discrimination rules. The Federal Government can't give us protection under the law. They would then have to let us get married.
Perhaps the protection isn't as complete as for minorities, etc. However, I doubt that refusal to serve a gay person or rent them a room in a hotel would be constitutional Gay rights in the military should be protected by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Gay rights are now protected by anti-discrimination clauses in many city and some state governments. I'm not sure why federal anti-discrimination laws couldn't be stretched on constitutional grounds to cover gays. I guess the laws mention only race, religion, age, gender and handicap but don't include sexual identity. It won't be long before gay marriage, certainly civil agreements entered into by gay couples will be universally recognized to provide all the rights of religious or civil marriages. For some reason people balk at calling civil unions "marriages."
Is their a constitutional lawyer in the house?
We need to bring back Harry Truman. He had the guts to integrate the military shortly after WWII despite the fact that only 7 percent of officers and enlisted men supported the idea. He signed the executive order and told the military to "Deal with it." And they did.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out yesterday after an interview with Choi, we live in a constitutional democracy, and we aren't supposed to vote or base decisions on surveys involving constitutional rights. It's pretty clear that don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional.
I read the related link to this topic. I'm glad they gave him an honorable discharge: the protest action could have resulted in much more severe retaliation, especially since the gentleman in question went on TV.
In principle, I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy sidesteps the issue of gays in the military, where, in my opinion, they have every right to openly be. Why make these people hide in the closet because they want to serve our country? It makes no sense to me.
The policy is what it is, for now, and I hope it is soon changed, but I think when you join the military you have agreed to do things their way by signing the enlistment papers.
Maybe if Lt Choi was the only one, and maybe if he did something that put his men in danger, I would agree with you. But, none of his actions were harmful to the Military. He didn't give away any secrets or run around on a battlefield in a dress and heels. And what about the gay people that did nothing at all to bring Discharge on themselves? Do you remember this Soldier?
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/ … e_070309w/
Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach
A distinguished Air Force officer is being discharged because a civilian acquaintance outed him. Never mind his accomplishments and years of service. Never mind the fact that he didn't out himself. He's being discharged.
“Victor is a great human face that shows the problem that is ‘don’t ask/don’t tell.’ This is happening every day," said Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national non-profit organization that is providing Fehrenbach with free legal counsel. The organization is dedicated to ending the 1993 law.
A public information officer at the base released a statement from Air Combat Command out of Langley Air Force Base stating: “Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is being processed for administrative separation for homosexual conduct, as defined by Air Force instructions implementing federal law, specifically, 10 USC 654.
This law requires the Department of Defense, and in turn the Department of the Air Force, to separate from the armed forces members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts. The law establishes the basis for separation from the armed forces as conduct, not orientation."
http://current.com/groups/culture/90118 … t-tell.htm
Just about everybody agrees that don't ask, don't tell is a dumb and unfair policy. I find it hard to understand why Gates and Obama are dragging their feet in view of the foregone conclusion that the policy will eventually be dumped. Truman would have disposed of the issue long ago.
The reason why Obama and Congress are dragging their heels now is simple - politics. We are going into an election and Democrats are trying to position themsleves to appeal to independents who are the swing vote. Teabaggers WANT to frame the election about the 'gay agenda'. Democrats don't want to run agaist an issue that doesn't exist.
(Somebody email me a copy of the 'gay agenda' if you have one.)
So the progressive reform issues that we elect democrats to enact get thrown under the bus so they can continue to get elected.
That is all true Doug. But would an executive order stopping discharges hurt Democrats in any way? It's what the people want. Democrats, Liberals, and Republicans. I'm sorry, but this Administration has been too spineless the whole time Obama has been in Office. Following their Keystone Cop rush to kiss republican Ass in the Sherrod case: I have to say this is the last straw for me. Democrats dont have the guts to run a Nation. I'm going to become an Independant.
Obama never ran as a progressive - he ran as a moderate and he IS a moderate. The same is true for a lot of Democrats. I'm in favor of moveing the 'center' further left so that hot-button issues like equality based on sexual orientation is the law. But progress will be incremental.
Unless teabaggers get elected - then we will regress.
I am outraged! The military is suppose to represent and defend the United States, and the Constitution. Or just the Constitution, and not the people it was written for? WE THE PEOPLE are against their dishonorable and shameful treatment of their fellow soldiers! Why do they need a year of STUDY to figure this out?
Thankfully, some people in our Judicial Branch have honor and courage, and they still think they work for the people of this Country instead of the other way around.
"Government attorneys say the issue should be decided by Congress and not in a federal courtroom in Southern California."
In deciding to hear the challenge, U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the "possibility that action by the legislative and executive branches will moot this case is sufficiently remote."
http://www.military.com/news/article/ex … y-ban.html
I'm generally very conservative on most issues, but on this I just don't see what the big deal is, gay, straight, what difference does it make if a person can pass basic training the serve our country. Sexual orientation shouldn't matter really.
Although I worry about the gays who come out even if it is made to be okay for gays to come out in the military.
As there are so many aggressive people who will hurt or even kill them. Thats what scares me about it all.
The President was here in New York today. He's taped a show on the View. Do you think President Obama will address the fact the he's allowing Gay people to dischared under his watch? Do you think any of the ladies will ask him why he hasn't used the excecutive order to end the outrage of discharge for the Gay solder.
by The Truth5 years ago
The subject bar would not let me type in my whole question, so I chose the part of it that would get the most attention. Below is the entire question and an explanation of it:DOES HOLLYWOOD HAVE A 'GAY AGENDA' OR...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or...
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually...
by TheWorldNow3 months ago
Something that really bothers me is when people don't have respect for the Office of the President of the United States.It doesn't matter if you disagree with or hate the occupant of the Office, you still need to show...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
I think it was great that the POTUS payed a surprise visit to troops in Afghanistan. I'm sure these men and women often feel that they perform a thankless job, and a special thanks from the prez had to be a...
by Quilligrapher5 years ago
Congress and the President still intend to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional right to a trial by jury."National Defense Authorization Act: House And Senate Negotiators Agree On Bill Hoping To Avoid...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.