Bill Seeks To Correct Records Of Veterans Discharged For Being Gay

Jun 23, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.ontopmag.com

Democratic representatives Charlie Rangel of New York and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin on Wednesday announced that they will sponsor a bill which seeks to correct the records of some gay veterans discharged because of their sexual orientation.

Comments
1 - 20 of 39 Comments Last updated Jun 25, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Lorenzo

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

I hope this stupid bill never passes. These filthy perverts were dishonorably discharged and deserved to be!
1 post removed

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Lorenzo wrote:
I hope this stupid bill never passes. These filthy perverts were dishonorably discharged and deserved to be!
So you hate the people who lay down their lives to protect your right to be a complete and total scumbag? How telling of your kind, and not unexpected.
Lilith_Satans_Wh o_re

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

this bill will pass with flying colors

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Military isn't big on grandfather actions of any kind.

I hope it passes.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Lorenzo wrote:
I hope this stupid bill never passes. These filthy perverts were dishonorably discharged and deserved to be!
Let's hear about your glorious military service, may we?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lorenzo wrote:
I hope this stupid bill never passes. These filthy perverts were dishonorably discharged and deserved to be!
Aren't you late for your cross burning?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

According to the congressmen, a dishonorable discharge is treated as a felony in many states, and can lead to service members being blocked from voting, unemployment benefits, participating in the GI Bill or receiving veteran benefits such as health care, VA disability and ceremonial burial rights at military cemeteries.

Veterans discharged prior to the 1993 implementation of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” in particular were likely to receive discharges that were classified as other than honorable or dishonorable.
1 post removed

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
I for one coud careless, but how do you correct an action against someone that was against the USMJ years ago and correct it because it's ok now. Back then they broke the rule so there is no second chance. Sorry but rules are rules.
That is a lame excuse for your hatred.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
I for one coud careless, but how do you correct an action against someone that was against the USMJ years ago and correct it because it's ok now. Back then they broke the rule so there is no second chance. Sorry but rules are rules.
Sort of like:



U.S. Constitution

main page
annotations

Article IV

Text
Learn more

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.(???)

or:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.(???)

or

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.(???)

Tell ya what. When you start enforcing the rules that make me a full citizen like I am, we can talk.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't you late for your cross burning?
His sheets must still be in the dryer.
2 posts removed

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Now getting back your chilish comment. Where did I show hatred. I was just stating facts. The came under the UCMJ and back then it was a DADT issue, so in order to get discharged you had to have told someone or havn't caught. This rule was signed in by Clinton. The service member made the mistake. They knew when they signed on the line of this rule. I don't care what there sex preference is. They knew the rule, so I think it's you that is showing hatred.
Such things can, and often are, expunged from records all the time. They are at risk, and most will be on disability if they do not have this charge removed. Do you want to keep paying for them?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 24, 2013
 
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't apply to the UCMJ and service member. Back then it DADT and if you came out and said you were gay you were dicharged by the rules. I didn't make it up. They broke the rule and there for it can be upgraded but they still have an article 15 conviction.
US soldiers aren't citizen that enjoy the same constitutional protections as any other citizen?

When did that happen?

I must have missed where the Constitution was deemed unconstitutional!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 24, 2013
 
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Now getting back your chilish comment. Where did I show hatred. I was just stating facts. The came under the UCMJ and back then it was a DADT issue, so in order to get discharged you had to have told someone or havn't caught. This rule was signed in by Clinton. The service member made the mistake. They knew when they signed on the line of this rule. I don't care what there sex preference is. They knew the rule, so I think it's you that is showing hatred.
Why do you insist on ignoring part of DADTDP?

The Don't Pursue part?

Isn't that a direct violation of a lawful order from the Commander in Chief?

You want to insist rules are followed then show some consistency.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 24, 2013
 
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Now getting back your chilish comment. Where did I show hatred. I was just stating facts. The came under the UCMJ and back then it was a DADT issue, so in order to get discharged you had to have told someone or havn't caught. This rule was signed in by Clinton. The service member made the mistake. They knew when they signed on the line of this rule. I don't care what there sex preference is. They knew the rule, so I think it's you that is showing hatred.
The people who ignored don't pursue didn't follow the rules.

Why do you excuse them and blame everything on guys who didn't actually do anything wrong.
4 posts removed

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>But they did. When you join the military that policy was explain to everyone and you signed the paperwork, so if you comeout and admit you are gay and alot did just to get out of the service who's fault is that. All I am saying it just because the rules have changed doesn't get a do over. I think the wrost should be an other then honorable abd they would get the same benifits as a service member that recieved an honorable. They broke the rule so they should get the same discharge.
The problem you ignore is that many hadn't come out and hadn't been caught having gay sex. They were discharged in witch hunts. Think McCarthyism. HUAC.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Good god it's like talking to wall. Service member still hav constutional rights to a certain point, but there are certain rule that the miltary has callled the UCMJ that do not fall under regular law. Bottom line this was an issue that Clinton signed in 1993 and has been changes. No where in the constitution does it state you have the right be gay and serve in the military. You know nothing about the military and that's why you don't understand. Example we can't just go in a commanders office and give his a peice of out mind. You would get an article 15 and dicharged. Depending how bad a Cout Martial with a felony conviction. Understand. The military has it's own set of laws.
My brother served for 32 years. I know what I'm talking about.

How long did you serve?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Good god it's like talking to wall. Service member still hav constutional rights to a certain point, but there are certain rule that the miltary has callled the UCMJ that do not fall under regular law. Bottom line this was an issue that Clinton signed in 1993 and has been changes. No where in the constitution does it state you have the right be gay and serve in the military. You know nothing about the military and that's why you don't understand. Example we can't just go in a commanders office and give his a peice of out mind. You would get an article 15 and dicharged. Depending how bad a Cout Martial with a felony conviction. Understand. The military has it's own set of laws.
My brother had to deal with DADTDP as a commander. I'll trust his personal experiences, to your speculation.

The few times this came up it was usually some guy trying to get someone else kicked out.

He reminded them of the Don't ask Don't pursue part and told them to get back to work.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Good god it's like talking to wall. Service member still hav constutional rights to a certain point, but there are certain rule that the miltary has callled the UCMJ that do not fall under regular law. Bottom line this was an issue that Clinton signed in 1993 and has been changes. No where in the constitution does it state you have the right be gay and serve in the military. You know nothing about the military and that's why you don't understand. Example we can't just go in a commanders office and give his a peice of out mind. You would get an article 15 and dicharged. Depending how bad a Cout Martial with a felony conviction. Understand. The military has it's own set of laws.
Yet you oppose correcting the damage done by an unjust rule, that's hatred talking on your part.
2 posts removed

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>The rule wasn't unjust at the time becasue it was signed into law. Bottom line there were no witch hunts becasue there is an article 32 hear to provide evidence befor they can charge them so they were eith caught and came out. Hell I will bet their are lots that made it up just get out. The issue isn't if they were gay. The issue is they violated an UCMJ article.
That's the same thing as the christians justifying stoning children, the "because it was a different time" does not change the fact that the rule was unjust, and therefore unconstitutional. It was unjust and all damage done by unjust laws must be repaired within reason, if not, then our government is nothing more than tyranny.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you oppose correcting the damage done by an unjust rule, that's hatred talking on your part.
It could also be vanity of just plain foolishness.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••