Eske wrote:
Unsubstantiated assumption is not a valid legal rationale. An argument like that will not stand up if the legislation is brought to court. The military may very well operate on that motto, but if it's just a motto (I haven't found it codified anywhere) then it can and will be overruled if DADT is repealed.
You are more than likely correct, but I'm just talking from my stand point as a Soldier. That's how the Army works and that isn't going to change just because DADT is repealed.
Eske wrote:
I believe that it's hypocritical because I believe that the military should espouse the same values that we hold in this country.
Oh, as a member of the military, I would surely hope not. There is obviously a different interpretation on morals and values and even though I despise Republicans most of the time, I, as well with most of the military based on voting history, prefer more conservative laws when it comes to morals and values.
Free to do whatever you want and please and forcing people to "deal with it" isn't considered "morals and values", it's called an agenda.
Eske wrote:
Discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal in the public workplace in over half of the states, and that number is rising. Federal employees are protected from discrimination based on sexual preference. A federal ban on discrimination based on sexual preference gets more support each time that it is brought up. Soon, it will be national law. It's a matter of when, not if.
The United States purports to allow everyone equal treatment under the law. That we do not hold our military (composed of our own citizens) to the same standard is a tremendous hypocrisy.
I completely agree for just about every job I can think of off the top of my head except the military. The military != the civilian work force and as such shouldn't be treated as so. If you make that convergence, then what power does the military have over the servicemen? The fact that it isn't a civilian workforce is how they can
force you to do stuff or threaten you with jail time. The only way to maintain order and discipline is to have extra restrictions and lack of individual power.
I don't know what type of military you want where people can just quit at any time and simply just be an individual. I know that you're probably aren't thinking that extreme, but that's exactly what you're promoting by claiming that the military should emulate the civilian work force. It should simply never happen, ever.
Eske wrote:
DADT was codified as part of a comprehensive package of military legislation. It will likely be repealed in the same fashion. Because of this, it's entirely possible that a repeal could run alongside repeals of the bans on sodomy and oral sex.
Hypothetically speaking, if that was the case, would you then support the repeal of DADT?
I answered this in my last post to you.
Up until I heard the 4 star speak on the privacy issue, my answer was "sure, do whatever you want, I don't care". Now my answer is "maybe", depending if they can address the privacy issue or any other hindering issue. Like I mentioned before, it's not like homosexuals aren't already serving. Some people coming out would probably be a surprise, but I suspect a lot of "Ricky Martins", "Clay Atkins" "Ne-yo's" and "Rosie O'donnels".