Forum :: Lounge :: Urge your Senator's to repeal DADT (US residents only)

If you keep up with politics in the US, I'm sure you've heard about recent efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If you follow me on Twitter, you've probably seen me encouraging others to call their Senators and urge them to vote to repeal. If you're not familiar with the policy, it prevents gay men and lesbians from openly serving in the military and caused 14,000 members to be discharged since 1993. You're probably thinking that has to be unconstitutional and it is. A court has already ruled it to be and is currently waiting on the Senate to vote on it's repeal.

I strongly believe in LGBT rights and equal rights in general which is supposed to be what America stands for. Calling is fairly simple. You just need to find out who your Senators are which you can do by visiting: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and selecting your state. After you've found this out, grab your phone and dial: (202) 224-3121. It may take a bit for someone to answer as they're usually receiving quite a few calls. Just ask to be transferred to Senator *Name here*'s voicemail. Once you've made it to their voicemail, leave a message like: "Hi, My name is *your name* from *your state* and I would like to strongly urge to repeal don't ask don't tell. Thank you and have a wonderful day."

I thank you for reading this and I'm sure the rest of the LGBT community does too!

You've said many times you hate America, the military, and the government, and that you would rather move to Canada. You have no say in this.

My opinion is this: I am in the Navy, and while I am completely for gay rights, I do not believe this act should be repealed. First, according to an article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, homosexuality is a crime against the military, and can result in your dishonorable discharge from military service. If DADT was in fact repealed, all the people who have been discharged by this policy would start a riot, of sorts. They would demand restitution. Of course, the government would not be able to handle so many people at once, especially considering the economic down we are in.

Also, being in the Navy, we go out on 6-8 month deployments once every 2 years or so, and I don't know about you, but it would be a bit awkward to share a bunk with a gay guy, and you barely having room to turn while you're laying down. After all, ships aren't exactly roomy places. Another thing is that spouses are not allowed to come onboard ships with you, this includes females not being allowed to bring their husbands on board. This would have to be added to that rule as well.

So that's two amendments that would have to be made to a set of laws. And if they're going to do that, they might as well fucking make it legal for people under 21 to drink alcohol legally (which has been talked about but shot down every time).

In my eyes, it is a very bad idea for DADT to be repealed. Not only I think that, but everyone I work with shares this opinion. I have not met a single person on my base who thinks it is a good idea. It's like Obama, the only reason he won is because he's black. If you look at the facts, you will have to admit this is true.

If this passes, it will only be because gays flooded the votes to appeal for it. Not because it is a good idea, but because gays will be thinking, "Oh hey, we can win something!" Things like this seem to be a game, but these changes actually affect our working environment, not yours. You have to consider what the changes will be like for us.

---
May he now rest under aegis of mirage -
As the sands slowly turn to Elysian fields

Syran posted: (19th Sep 2010 02:49 am)

You've said many times you hate America, the military, and the government, and that you would rather move to Canada. You have no say in this.

My opinion is this: I am in the Navy, and while I am completely for gay rights, I do not believe this act should be repealed. First, according to an article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, homosexuality is a crime against the military, and can result in your dishonorable discharge frommilitary service. If DADT was in fact repealed, all the people who have been discharged by this policy would start a riot, of sorts. They would demand restitution. Of course, the government would not be able to handle so many people at once, especially considering the economic down we arein.

Also, being in the Navy, we go out on 6-8 month deployments once every 2 years or so, and I don't know about you, but it would be a bit awkward to share a bunk with a gay guy, and you barely having room to turn while you're laying down. After all, ships aren't exactly roomy places. Another thingis that spouses are not allowed to come onboard ships with you, this includes females not being allowed to bring their husbands on board. This would have to be added to that rule as well.

So that's two amendments that would have to be made to a set of laws. And if they're going to do that, they might as well fucking make it legal for people under 21 to drink alcohol legally (which has been talked about but shot down every time).

In my eyes, it is a very bad idea for DADT to be repealed. Not only I think that, but everyone I work with shares this opinion. I have not met a single person on my base who thinks it is a good idea. It's like Obama, the only reason he won is because he's black. If you look at the facts, youwill have to admit this is true.

If this passes, it will only be because gays flooded the votes to appeal for it. Not because it is a good idea, but because gays will be thinking, "Oh hey, we can win something!" Things like this seem to be a game, but these changes actually affect our working environment, not yours. You have toconsider what the changes will be like for us.

I really do hate America (which is really less and less as these retarded laws are repealed and new protections are added) and this one of my reasons. I'm a United States citizen so my opinion does matter. :P Anyways, I feel this policy should be repealed on grounds of being unconstitutional. Did you also know that since these 14,000 WILLING and ABLE members have been discharged the government has lowered the requirements for enlisting which essentially just makes our military less able? I don't see how someones sexual orientation has to do with how well they can serve in the military. If you do a bit of Google'ing, you'll see where service members share their stories. After years of being in the military, they get discharged because of a suspicion that they might be gay. Their fellow unit members usually don't agree with the decision and claim it actually makes the morale of the unit worse. The majority of other countries have already removed these bans long ago. In fact, most civilized countries have and they have also helped with the situation in Iraq.

The government lowered the standards because people can't seem to score higher than a 32 or so on the ASVAB, not because we kicked gays out. And if you went to boot camp, there is a note by the article about DADT, stating that you will not necessarily be discharged for it. Only about 1/7 oftheknown gay people in the military have been discharged for being gay. I work with several gay people around here, and it is awkward at times yes, but even they are against repealing this law. As a reference, I will post the article in question.

§ 925. Art. 125. Sodomy
 
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

There is no direct article concerning homosexuality, if you wish to see for yourself, the link is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47_40_X.html

EDIT: The article about homosexuality was not in the Punitive Article sections. It was in the General Service Requirements section. It is too long to post, so here is the link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

---
May he now rest under aegis of mirage -
As the sands slowly turn to Elysian fields

Syran posted: (19th Sep 2010 03:17 am)

The government lowered the standards because people can't seem to score higher than a 32 or so on the ASVAB, not because we kicked gays out. And if you went to boot camp, there is a note by the article about DADT, stating that you will not necessarily be discharged for it. Only about 1/7 of theknown gay people in the military have been discharged for being gay. I work with several gay people around here, and it is awkward at times yes, but even they are against repealing this law. As a reference, I will post the article in question.

§ 925. Art. 125. Sodomy
 
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I fail to see what this Sodomy law has to do with don't ask don't tell. I'm fairly certain all relationships are forbidden in the military and is grounds for discharge. I have never read this 1/7 quote that you have given. Do your co-workers talk about their life outside of the navy? (ie. marriage, girlfriends, etc.) Don't ask, Don't tell prevents closeted gays and lesbians from discussing anything like this. Once again, I fail to see how gays and lesbians serving in the military is going to affect straight members. Your in the military to fight for this country not have a big orgy and I'm pretty sure anyone joining is going to have the same opinion.

Honestly. I could care a less about any of this, that's why i'm posting here. I think America has way to many stupid laws. Once there "unforced" there not being removed. Canada is differently the best of places.

Hm... I must agree with Scott, I see no reason why being in proximity to a gay/lesbian should have any effect on you. If you're truly uncomfortable with it then avoid another who is homosexual, if you're forced to sleep in the same bunk as them (being in the military), then deal with it, so long as they're not inappropriately "touching" you I don't believe this would be an issue.

I'm not putting down your opinion if you're against it, but If you honestly have an issue with gays/lesbians then avoid coming in contact if possible.

Telling someone that they are not allowed the rights of an American citizen simply due to beliefs is unconstitutional and is hypocrisy by nature, an American has the right to his beliefs and no where is it stated that one shall be denied the right due to such, unless committing a crime to a certain degree or treason against his/her country.

Fair luck to you Scott.

Update, the bill was not passed. DADT is still in effect. And all this shit about fairness, how about I throw this out.

If we want to be FAIR, then don't fucking do 9 month deployments. We are already away from our families and children enough as it is. Civilians don't have to be away from EVERYTHING for up to 9 months at a time [sarcasm]THIS MUST BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL[/sarcasm].

If we want to be FAIR, send every fucking civilian to boot camp. I guaran-fucking-tee you you will have a different opinion of us after.

If we want to be FAIR, then fucking make the military unable to discharge people due to a) physical disabilities (last I heard that could end in a lawsuit with any other business), b) mental disabilities.

If we want to be FAIR, re-institute the draft. It never hurts to have some guys helping out, you know, and no one volunteers.

We make a LOT of sacrifices so that you can all be safe. But no one seems to realize, and worse, no one even seems to care. You take for granted what we give our lives for. The military has a lot of traditions that civilians would consider unconstitutional, but it's who we fucking are. If youhave a problem with that, then keep it to yourself. If you're in the military, feel free to complain, but don't ever expect it to change. Personally, I think DADT is very fair, considering they could just ask you and kick you out like that. You have to think, we do allow it, as long as it is not public knowledge.

As the quote goes, "Don't fix what isn't broken."

---
May he now rest under aegis of mirage -
As the sands slowly turn to Elysian fields

I agree with Syran on this one. They really do do a whole lot of shitty stuff to protect us and stand up for us, and most of the time, all they get is a bunch of us civvies telling them how they should do it. If you wanna make a call about the military, and how they should do stuff, go join up. Until you go serve with them, I don't want to hear about how they should be doing it.

As for the whole DADT thing, frankly, I'm not into the whole gay/lesbian thing. Something about it just feels.... wrong. That said, I won't hate anyone who is. They're still human. It just seems wrong to me is all.

Syran, you and your friends keep serving. And rest assured, there are some of us citizens who are PROUD to be Americans and, to us, you all who serve are a big part of that. A lot of us are grateful for the sacrifices you all routinely make, and you will always have a place in our hearts.

A court is expected to rule tomorrow on whether a world-wide injunction is appropriate. The Obama administration has requested it be limited to the scope of the plaintiffs. I expect this to be appealed either way. I imagine it'll reach SCOTUS or Congress will repeal it before it does. The only reason it wasn't repealed was because of the bill it was attached to.

Oh and for the record: The Constitution applies to EVERYONE. Not just the "groups" you agree with.

hm. well, glad I'm canadian..

---
420Иﻜ0o
"The Lord is a shoving leopard."

No one said the constitution only applies to groups we agree with? At least, I didn't say it. And Syran didn't say it. Not sure where you got that. Also, show me in the constitution where it promises marriage protection rights to anyone, heterosexual or not. Last time I read through it, there's no "anyone can get married" clause. The heart of this issue is religious morals, and that's a topic I'm sure we don't want to breech. 

In short, if you're for gay marriage, wonderful. I, personally, am not, and our country in a historical sense has not been for them. If you want to live together and have a great life, so be it, but you don't really need to call it marriage.

Amusing caviat, if they get married, their taxes increase, so why they'd want to shell out more money is beyond me anyways. Just something to lighten the mood.

Zyrkhan posted: (24th Sep 2010 05:18 pm)

No one said the constitution only applies to groups we agree with? At least, I didn't say it. And Syran didn't say it. Not sure where you got that. Also, show me in the constitution where it promises marriage protection rights to anyone, heterosexual or not. Last time I read throughit,there'sno"anyone can get married" clause. The heart of this issue is religious morals, and that's a topic I'm sure we don't want to breech. 

In short, if you're for gay marriage, wonderful. I, personally, am not, and our country in a historical sense has not been for them. If you want to live together and have a great life, so be it, but you don't really need to call it marriage.

Amusing caviat, if they get married, their taxes increase, so why they'd want to shell out more money is beyond me anyways. Just something to lighten the mood.

This isn't even about marriage. The Constitution says everyone has the right to free speech and due process which DADT violates. A federal judge agreed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America This isn't about whether you agree with homosexuality. If youbelieve in equality and what the US Constitution stands for, you would want DADT to be halted.

By the way, couples that are married get tax breaks that unmarried couples don't get.

Just in: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/24/military.gay.reinstatement/index.html?hpt=T2

The right of free speech, and indeed ALL the rights of the American people, are guaranteed only insomuch as that they do not violate, transgress, diminish, or infringe the rights of other citizens of the country. As soon as that stipulation is broken, you are operating OUTSIDE constitutional law. Due process applies to trial proceedings.

As I see it, the military legal code states that "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Just thought I'd post this.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/14/obama-on-homosexuality-i-dont-think-its-a-choice/

---
420Иﻜ0o
"The Lord is a shoving leopard."