Gay, Married & In The Military

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2009 6:42 AM GMT
    Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut,Iowa & now Maine

    With Gay Marriage Passing In theses states and more to come, It seems like thier is a new Postive mood air. But with all this good energy around where does this leave the United States Military. Generally, DADT permits the discharge of members of the armed forces on account of homosexual activity.

    Has the change Come? Is this a New America like our newly 44th President Barack Hussin Obama Promised That America will become?

    President Obama and his administraion already has plans on striking down DADT.

    DADT has already been struck down before. In May 22, 2008 Major Witt sued the Air Force claimed that DADT violates substantive due process, the Equal Protection Clause, and procedural due process. The 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), in which the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that banned homosexual sodomy ruled in her favor.

    I wanna know what you guys think. Does being able to marry violate DADT. Can a Gay Man or Women get married to the same sex and then enlist in the military? Or would that still be a violation of DADT ?

    Heterosexualls are allowed marry and enlist.. Why can't We?
    With Gay Marriage picking up and door steps away from going Federal, How long do we have to wait for DADT to be gone and be allowed to serve openly without violation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2009 2:43 PM GMT
    The way to fix this is to have no married people in the military. There's really no other solution, now that some states have marriage equality. This is assuming, of course, that applications to enter the military ask about one's marital status. If they do, and you lie, that's probably grounds for something terrible to happen to you. Uncle Sam'll put you over his knee and get the big belt.

    edit:

    Actually, the other way to fix this is to simply ban gays from the military and forget not asking and not telling.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 07, 2009 2:47 PM GMT
    You know, I never considered that, but that's a really good point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2009 2:49 PM GMT
    As it currently stands I believe DADT forbids same-sex marriage:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
    ...
    (b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
    .....
    (3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

    My guess that even if it is legal in some states that opponents would use DOMA to further say that military service members cannot be married, etc.

    It may be possible that the courts rule against this but things are too foggy now. Also there are the old guys who still don't believe gays are fit to serve in the military. Though I know it will change there are still those who are dragging their feet. Here are a few articles:

    Congress In No Rush To Lift 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
    here is a recent one .. listen to the audio on the page ..
    Retired Officers Seek To End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
    And here is a negative one very recent .. listen to the audio
    Op-Ed: Gays And The Military A Bad Fit
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 07, 2009 2:57 PM GMT
    Well according to the code it is a violation of the armed service's policy in regard to homosexuality for a person to marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex.

    Did you know that you are not suppose to engage in any homosexual activity or conduct while serving in the armed forces? This includes in your private life and off base even.

    Imagine if straight people have to live according to that rule.. They would say that is completely insane to expect of someone, even inhumane and disrespectful of one's life and loved ones! But it's OK to treat gay people like that. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I have a question too in regard to the armed forces ban against known homosexuals serving. What about the president? If the president happened to be gay would he not be allowed to serve as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? If so wouldn't that be a violation of the federal constitution as well then?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2009 2:58 PM GMT
    Anto saidDid you know that you are not suppose to engage in any homosexual activity or conduct while serving in the armed forces? This includes in your private life and off base even.
    Yes, if you go to the link I posted you can see all the details of what is forbidden
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2009 3:04 PM GMT
    Anto saidI have a question too in regard to the armed forces ban against known homosexuals serving. What about the president? If the president happened to be gay would he not be allowed to serve as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? If so wouldn't that be a violation of the federal constitution as well then?
    Although the president is commander-in-chief he is still a civilian and not subject to DADT. Here is an article on Civilian control of the military:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military#A_civilian_commander-in-chiefThe establishment of a civilian president or other government figure as the military's commander-in-chief within the chain of command is one legal construct for the propagation of civilian control.

    In the United States, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the commander-in-chief.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 07, 2009 3:59 PM GMT
    So the armed forces can tolerate gay civilians in their ranks but not someone officially part of the armed forces?

    Are civilians allowed to work, be on bases, in ships, etc with the military for example? Does the ban on known homosexuals serving in the armed forces apply to them if they do?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2009 3:59 PM GMT
    I here what you are saying ActiveAndFit but what if a person sued a military branch like Major Witt did.
    http://contiguglia.wordpress.com/2008/05/

    Intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.


    Lawrence v. Texas

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

    What then???
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 07, 2009 4:19 PM GMT
    From the demoinesregister.com
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090504/NEWS/905040325/Iowa+Guard+will+still+oust+married+gays+

    Iowa Guard will still oust married gays

    Gay and lesbian military service members who are legally married in Iowa can still be involuntarily discharged from the Iowa National Guard and other military branches under a federal law that prevents homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces, military officials say.

    The federal law, approved by Congress in 1993, takes precedence over the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April that legalized same-sex marriage, according to legal experts. The ruling struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, which had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

    The Iowa National Guard is prevented from implementing the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling for its personnel because it is a federally recognized military organization, said Lt. Col. Gregory Hapgood Jr., the Iowa National Guard's public affairs officer.

    "We are a microcosm of society," Hapgood said. "We have gay people in the Iowa National Guard. But under that policy, that is not the test. It is about conduct, not about whether you are gay."

    The federal law is often described as "don't ask, don't tell" because it permits gays and lesbians to serve in the military if they are not open about their sexual orientation.

    Officials representing One Iowa, a Des Moines-based gay rights group, said they had been unaware of the Iowa National Guard's legal stance on same-sex marriage.

    "We believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military and encourage federal legislation to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell.' Iowans serving honorably in the military should not have to choose between the protections of marriage and their dedication to serving our country," said Carolyn Jenison, One Iowa's executive director.

    None of the 9,400 soldiers and airmen now serving in the Iowa National Guard is known to have obtained a license for a same-sex marriage since the Iowa court ruling was issued, Hapgood said.

    He said he wasn't aware of any gays or lesbians being discharged from the Iowa National Guard since the ban on homosexuals openly serving in the military was approved by Congress. This includes thousands of Iowa National Guard members deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries since 2001, he said.

    The federal law allows the military to discharge members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts, and those who state they are homosexual or bisexual. The law says that military life is fundamentally different from civilian life. It also says the prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

    The ban on same-sex marriage by National Guard members and other military service personnel also applies in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont, the three other states with legalized same-sex marriage, said Emily Hecht, a lawyer for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group dedicated to repealing the federal law. Same-sex marriage will be legal in Vermont as of Sept. 1.

    President Barack Obama said during his campaign for the White House that he favored repealing the ban on homosexuals openly serving in the military. But since Obama assumed office in January, the federal prohibition has remained in place.

    White House spokesman Shin Inouye said last week that Obama supports changing the federal law "in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." He did not provide a timetable for making changes.

    Impatient gay activists have been urging Obama to end his silence on the issue.

    U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, "believes that any kind of discrimination is wrong" and favors repealing the military's homosexual-conduct policy, said Kate Cyrul, Harkin's spokeswoman.

    But U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, "doesn't want the policy revisited," said Beth Pellett Levine, a Grassley aide.

    The Rev. Skip Hansen of Eldora, a former Army Reserve drill sergeant and a leader of the Iowa Baptist Conference, said allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military is not only immoral but impractical in a highly disciplined military culture focused on life-and- death matters. To permit homosexuals to have lovers within a military unit would create dangerous tensions among people who carry weapons, he said.

    Former U.S. Attorney Charles Larson of Cedar Rapids, a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, predicted the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling that legalized gay marriage would generate more debate on the military's homosexual-conduct policy.

    "From my observation of the troops, it seems to be working effectively. We are able to recruit and field very strong forces," Larson said. "Obviously, there will be strong feelings on both sides of this issue. It is just undeniable. But the first guiding principle is that federal law is considered the supreme law of the land, and we will have to go forward with that."

    Since the federal law's implementation, more than 12,500 men and women have been discharged on the ground of violating its provisions, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

    But commanding officers have discretion about whether to initiate discharge proceedings, Hecht said. This has resulted in some openly gay men and women remaining on military duty, she added.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 07, 2009 4:21 PM GMT
    "We are a microcosm of society," Hapgood said. "We have gay people in the Iowa National Guard. But under that policy, that is not the test. It is about conduct, not about whether you are gay."


    I thought that our propensity to engage in homosexual acts alone was enough to make us gay. It's one and the same, isn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 3:40 AM GMT
    usmcblkscorpion said I here what you are saying ActiveAndFit but what if a person sued a military branch like Major Witt did.
    http://contiguglia.wordpress.com/2008/05/
    Intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Lawrence v. Texas
    wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
    What then???
    That's the whole foggy part to me. Maybe some judge could see that this whole thing is discrimination, but if they accept what actual code says as valid then it is pretty explicit about marriage.

    Of course I saw another article that brought up another point I have thought about for a long time. As commander and chief I think the president can choose not to have these things investigated or prosecuted:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.htmlA new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

    An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.
    I think the right wing would throw a fit though. However I don't know how the army for instance could have had a "stop loss" policy to retain guys finished with their obligation, yet at the same time get rid of other guys not finished with theirs and not wanting to go.

    Of course we know the whole thing is riddled with contradictions and irrational fear. I was thinking of this .. if a guy is "afraid" of another guy hitting on him, wouldn't you rather have in your company a married guy who was committed to another guy and therefore not interested in you or anyone else?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 3:44 AM GMT
    I ask myself this all the time and if I could get married in the military to a dude I would probably stay in but there is also that "off the record" type of punishment, blackballing....ect I hope the future gay kids will have it easy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 3:48 AM GMT
    usmcblkscorpion saidMassachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut,Iowa & now Maine

    Actually, not Maine. The Republicans are gathering signatures to bring this to a voter referendum, which is allowed under the Maine constitution.

    Before any gay marriages can take place, the petition will prevent the new law from taking effect while the issue goes to a vote. And if California is any indication, huge amounts of out-of-state money and campaigning will ultimately defeat gay marriage in Maine. Nice try, but no gay marriage for Maine. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 3:49 AM GMT
    I firmly believe that as more states allow same-sex marriage and if Congress ratifies the passing of the D.C. Bill to recognize same-sex marriages from other states that not only will D.O.M.A fall, Prop 8 will be stricken down and D.A.D.T. will be stricken as well. If the United States' best and closest ally doesn't care about gays who are out being in the military, we shouldn't either.

    Having said this, I do know that some in the military will say that military life and civilian life are as different as night and day, but civilians and military are citizens of this country and are subject to it's laws. So if it changes for us civilians, there can be no double standard for the military.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 3:53 AM GMT
    ErikTaurean saidHaving said this, I do know that some in the military will say that military life and civilian life are as different as night and day, but civilians and military are citizens of this country and are subject to it's laws. So if it changes for us civilians, there can be no double standard for the military.

    You are totally wrong. The US Constitution states that there is a different standard for the military compared to civilians. Military law does not need to comport with the Constitutional safeguards that apply to everyone else. This has always been the case, and the US Supreme Court has consistently upheld this distinction.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 08, 2009 4:10 AM GMT
    The Military makes its own rules.
    And, they bear no relationship to normalcy nor fairness nor common sense.
    Whether or not someone is married, has nothing to do with DADT.

    Obama (with the stroke of a pen), could order the military to stop prosecuting soldiers under DADT, without officially ordering the end of DADT. But, it would have the same effect.

    I'm not holding my breath.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 4:17 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    ErikTaurean saidHaving said this, I do know that some in the military will say that military life and civilian life are as different as night and day, but civilians and military are citizens of this country and are subject to it's laws. So if it changes for us civilians, there can be no double standard for the military.



    You are totally wrong. The US Constitution states that there is a different standard for the military compared to civilians. Military law does not need to comport with the Constitutional safeguards that apply to everyone else. This has always been the case, and the US Supreme Court has consistently upheld this distinction.


    Actually, I am not wrong. I was not citing was is, I was stating an opinion of what should come to pass and with the changes that are happening and after having spoken with my brothers who are in the military (1 in army, 1 in navy and 2 in the airforce, they agree. If the country falls in line with gay marriage, so will the military.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 4:26 AM GMT
    getfitrick saidI ask myself this all the time and if I could get married in the military to a dude I would probably stay in but there is also that "off the record" type of punishment, blackballing....ect I hope the future gay kids will have it easy
    It is your generation that will be the final nail in the coffin to end all of the anti-gay laws. Even with the recent prop 8 here in California, poll statistics showed that if it had been left up to people under 30 years old, prop 8 would have been resoundingly defeated. I hope as time goes on you get to "come out" to your real friends if you have not already. Nothing helps banish prejudice based on ignorance more than actually knowing and being friends with gay people.

  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 08, 2009 8:26 AM GMT
    Hapgood said. "We have gay people in the Iowa National Guard. But under that policy, that is not the test. It is about conduct, not about whether you are gay."

    That is a complete lie. It clearly states in the code that admitting to being gay or bisexual is a violation and grounds for discharge.

    See below:

    "A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
    ...
    "(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts."
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 08, 2009 7:06 PM GMT
    Hapgood should take a look at this (I underlined the part to emphasize what I mentioned in previous post):

    http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/dont-ask-dont-tell-continues-under-obama/


    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERE'Lt. Dan Choi of the New York National Guard is an Iraq War veteran and a West Point graduate. He also happens to speak fluent Arabic. Choi received a letter of discharge from the Army for “homosexual conduct.” His firing comes after he came out in March along with 37 other West Point graduates in a group called Knights Out.'
    ...
    The Department of the Army’s discharge letter to Choi states, “This is to inform you that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of Federal Recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction… You admitted publicly that you are a homosexual which constitutes homosexual conduct… Your actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard.”

    Choi says the letter was a “big slap in the face.”








    One thing I don't understand though when gay people get kicked out of the armed forces for being gay is why they act so surprised about it. Do they not read the rules in regard to homosexuality?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 7:19 PM GMT
    Why do people try to get equal treatment when they know they're not allowed? Are black people truly happier now that they can ride in the front of the bus?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 7:52 PM GMT

    Mc Gay -
    To answer your question in my opinion I can only speak for myself because I am not the spoke-person for all African Americans.

    Since I did not during the era of: Slavery, Jim Crow or Segregation. I don’t know what it means to give up my on a non voluntary basis. I have never been a victim of domestic terrorism. I would have to say I'm happier about that. But Racism and bigotry became more insidious pervasive.icon_mad.gif

    Those who never thought that would be the victim of bigotry are having a hard time dealing with it and rightly so.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 08, 2009 8:24 PM GMT
    McGay saidWhy do people try to get equal treatment when they know they're not allowed? Are black people truly happier now that they can ride in the front of the bus?


    Is that a response to my post? It's fine if people are trying to get equal treatment. What I don't understand is how people go into something knowing they are not going to be equally treated and then respond as if they are surprised and/or angry that they are not being equally treated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2009 8:36 PM GMT
    Anto said
    McGay saidWhy do people try to get equal treatment when they know they're not allowed? Are black people truly happier now that they can ride in the front of the bus?


    Is that a response to my post? It's fine if people are trying to get equal treatment. What I don't understand is how people go into something knowing they are not going to be equally treated and then respond as if they are surprised and/or angry that they are not being equally treated.


    Well... where would gay men who want to defend their country go? A paramilitary pro-american terrorist group?