From the Associated Press: A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military. Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point... We all know that good things happen when the courts dictate military policy and law... [/Sarcasm] But, for what it's worth, I don't understand this. Most of the media is saying that the judge ruled that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. But DADT is a Presidential finding (policy) that President Clinton put in place to actually protect gays from being asked about sexual orientation because the LAW enacted by Congress had stong punishments for gays being in the military (just as there are very strong punishments for adultery in the Uniform Code of Military Justice - it's not like civilian laws). So, is this judge reversing Congressional law from 1993 or actually REMOVING protections from gays who come out in the military? Regardless, this judge did not wait for the military to do this itself or wait for the Senate to pass the legislation that Congress already passed ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. Here at BlackFive we're split about the issue of gays in the military, but I am pretty sure that we're all in support of letting the military figure out the best way to remove the bans (see our letter about the issue). ...We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study... Instead, it is being ordered to do so in a way that may cause more problems. Those issues will be on the head of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips. Hell, even PRESIDENT OBAMA disagreed with the court. Because this case is really about setting the precedent to end the Defense of Marriage Act and has nothing to do with the defense of our country. [Update] - Someone just pointed out to me that, if the judge is ruling that part of the UCMJ is unconstitutional, then what part of the UCMJ is protected from activist judges? Could a judge order that lawful orders from military officers are unconstitutional? I'm not a lawyer so, for once, I'll ask that you constitutional and military lawyers speak up!
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/PT4XQwRGFZA/military-ordered-to-begin-accepting-gay-recruits.html
Posted
Oct 19 2010, 05:03 AM
by
BLACKFIVE