The Glade 4.0

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/dont.a ... index.html

-- A federal court in Riverside, California, ruled Thursday that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly -- is unconstitutional.

"Plaintiff has demonstrated it is entitled to the relief sought on behalf of its members, a judicial declaration that the don't ask, don't tell act violates the Fifth and First Amendments, and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement," concluded U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips, a 1999 Clinton appointee.

The 85-page ruling came in a case filed by the group Log Cabin Republicans against the government and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates.

"The act discriminates based on the content of the speech being regulated," Phillips wrote. "It distinguishes between speech regarding sexual orientation, and inevitably, family relationships and daily activities, by and about gay and lesbian servicemembers, which is banned, and speech on those subjects by and about heterosexual servicemembers, which is permitted."



Video: Troops surveyed on 'don't ask'

Video: Obama not doing enough?
RELATED TOPICS
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Armed Forces
Gays in the Military
But, she noted, "the sweeping reach of the restrictions on speech in the don't ask, don't tell act is far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake here."

Then, citing examples provided by witnesses, she concluded that "the act's restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government's substantial interests, but also actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals."

The next step is expected to be for the government to ask for a temporary injunction to prevent the ruling from going into immediate effect, pending further appeals. The government at some point in the next few weeks or months would then file a petition with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which is based in San Francisco, for a hearing. If the government were to lose, its next step would be to the Supreme Court.

But since the Pentagon and White House have signaled their intention to end don't ask, don't tell, with congressional approval, Thursday's ruling may be viewed in a different light.

Servicemembers United, which describes itself as the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, hailed the announcement.

"This is an historic moment and an historic ruling for the gay military community and for the readiness and integrity of our armed forces," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of the group and a former multi-lingual U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under don't ask, don't tell.

"As the only named injured party in this case, I am exceedingly proud to have been able to represent all who have been impacted and had their lives ruined by this blatantly unconstitutional policy. We are finally on our way to vindication."

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Provided they conduct themselves as befits men and women of the uniform, I have little problem with homosexuals serving in the military. The problem arises when this is used as a hammer to silence the free speech and religious practice of those who feel it is immoral.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You know that statement applies in the other direction right? Because, you know, "those who feel it is immortal" have been using it to hammer the free speech and religious practice of people who disagree for a long god damn time.

_________________

Sadly it does happen both ways. You should know by now I don't agree with everyone who labels themselves as Christian. Just because some identifying Christian somewhere did something wrong, does that make it okay for everyone else to do it?

I thought the goal was a society where all viewpoints are acceptable and all people can live peaceably within the dictates of their faith/conscience.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

There is perhaps an argument for the free speech part of your statement, perhaps. But the religious practice part is complete and total bullshit.

How so? I believe this push goes on to chaplains being forbidden to say homosexuality is a sin and being forced to marry same sex couples against their beliefs. You don't think it could happen? Remember our thread about the dissenting therapist?

Take a look at what's going in Mass. with the public schools and parents not being allowed to know when students are young as Kindergarten are being taught about sexuality?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Have those things happened Rorinthas? Or is this fear mongering about what might happen? Further, ones right to practice religion is protected. Their right to have a job as a chaplain in the military is not.

This was ruled on speech grounds so they get to talk about their life but others can talk right back.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Actually, it really doesn't change anything. They can now talk about their life, but nothing prevents them from being removed from service as best I understand the ruling.

_________________

So it's okay to bar chaplains from serving based on what they believe; just not homosexuals.

It's not fear mongering. I gave examples of how things like this have ballooned in the past: where the change of something collective has lead to the rights of individuals being squashed. Like when we got rid of forced prayer time in schools (probably a good thing) and it led to students to be disallowed to thank God for their food. And we have to hire extra staff to make sure they don't too.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

It was pointed out, but you didn't consider the flip side of this statement before posting it, did you?

"One's right to be gay is protected. Their right to have a job in the military is not."

And that I think is the crux of is argument. While I have no real opinion on this matter, or not enough information to form one I feel is well founded, I can see his point, and you can see other examples of exactly this kind of reaction... something is declared protected by free speech, but speaking out against that something for protected reasons (ie religion, etc) is considered illegal, or harassment, or used as a weapon against the person.

Employing a chaplain at government expense sounds like a poor idea, anyway. Would you like the idea of your tax money going toward providing a cleric in a religion you believe is wrong?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Absolutely. The military isn't a place you can just come and go as you see fit. You're stuck overseas on a base. They need to provide you with the basic resources to live as close to normally as is feasible.

I don't know what the alternative solution for providing for our troops spiritual care and religious freedom abroad would be.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This is completely tangential and losing the point of the thread, but I'm not really sure how having a chaplain is "providing religious freedom." Do we have a right to a pastor now? Is a pastor necessary to believe or practice one's faith? I don't have a problem with the chaplain being there, just the particular phrase being used to describe "religious freedom."

Along this line, is every individual soldier's faith represented by an available military chaplain somewhere?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Don't some religions have some pretty strict observances regarding death, or rituals that need to be performed at/near death? Last rites, confession, etc? I'm sure some could make an argument that not providing for those religious services of members of the armed forces is discrimination of some sort, and it is probably better for the military to have someone attached to the military rather than trying to keep civilians in the field doing those jobs.

I'm sorry I didn't elaborate Farsky. The only way to satisfy first amendment requirements is to allow chaplains of all religious types, not just the ones I (or any other entity) agree with. That's what I meant by religious freedom.

Taly probably not, but that's due to the organs of the religion not sending them. The military being a volunteer entity can only accept those who apply. And the requirements for all chaplains are steep. (Masters Degree, sponsorship, and experience. Plus you have to go to the academy or pass OCS.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

There is at least one chaplain for each major religion somewhere in the military, but it is an all-volunteer military. Chaplains are present in the proportions they volunteer.

More to the point, Army regulations (and presumably Air Force and Navy as well) are strict in requiring any chaplain to serve the needs of all soldiers regardles of faith, and not to promote their own faith, although they can answer the questions of soldiers if asked and conduct services according to their own practices. Generally Chaplains will split up responsibility for services at any given installation so that they are conduced by one of the most appropriate denomination or religion. If oen is not available other arrangements are generally made.

In any case, chaplains are essential to moral, psychological health and unit effectiveness. The vast majority of soldiers have some sort of religious belief and even those that do not or that are not very serious about it often find the chaplain someone comforting to talk to about many matters, many of which do not have anything to do with religious faith. The Chaplain is someone with rank and influence with the commander, but who is not part of the chain of command or the unit staff and so is "safe" to go to. They also play essential parts in Equal Opportunity programs, Suicide Prevention, Sexual Harrassment prevention, and quite a few other health and well-being programs that keep soldiers and their families ready for deployments and combat. We have chaplains for the same reason we have any other military specialty; they enhance combat effectiveness.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you're thinking of Catholics, they usually have alternate procedures for anything that requires a priest if one cannot be found in a timely fashion. Generaly the military will provide a local priest when a catholic chaplain priest is not available; if neither can be done then Lay Eucharistic Ministers are utilized or some other alternate means. Catholic priest chaplains and even more Eastern ORthodox Chaplains are heavily overworked in many areas because they end up being shuttled all over to tend to soldiers of their faith.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I didn't say it was ok to bar chaplains from serving. I'm saying that they don't have a right to serve and say/do anything that they want. This is the part that folks seem to not understand.

I'm completely fine with chaplains serving in the military. I'm also completely fine with there being some rules around what things can be openly preached or diseminated. If any particular chaplain has a problem with that, then they can find another job, they don't have a right to be in the military.

Really the ONLY thing that gays are looking for from the Military is to be openly gay. That doesn't mean walking around in underwear, sparkle glitter and a pink boa while on duty. It means being able to say the words, "I'm gay" and not immediately get booted out of the military. If they wanted to serve in the military, they would still need to follow all of the normal rules for proper decorum and appearance.

That post on further exacerbates the inconsistencies in your position Aizle.

So you're adamant that gays be allowed to be openly gay, at the cost of religious people who view gay sex acts as sin from being allowed to openly profess their religious views on gay sex acts.

This is exactly what we thought you said before, and what we're pointing out as being exactly the same argument as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, inverted to apply the other way.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's more like providing free exercise. Many religions are difficult or impossible to practice without clergy and others still are very ahrd to because practitioners need the advice of clergy.

The military can only restrict the rights of its members insofar as it supports a valid military need. For example, you cannot tell a soldier not to march in a political protest, but you can tell him not to do it in uniform because wearing his uniform would mean he was representing the military when in fact he is representing himself.

With respect to free exercise, the military is obliged to provide soldiers the maximum practicable opportunity to practice as the tactical situation dictates, which necessetates providing clergy. There really is no argument that there is not an obligation to, since Chaplains are not only not an unreasonable burden on the military, they are, in fact, a benefit bacause of their positive effect on the moral and psychological health of the unit. The military cannot use the "you signed up" excuse to make any arbitrary rule it pleases, nor can it deploy you away from home and then use that excuse to essentially deprive you of free exercise. It wouldn't make any sense to anyhow, because soldiers whose spiritual needs are met and who have someone available whose entire job is to see to their well-being do their jobs better.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."