Bill Seeks To Correct Records Of Veterans Discharged For Being Gay

Jun 23, 2013 Full story: www.ontopmag.com 39

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.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#31 Jun 24, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>27 and still counting.
My apologies then for disrespecting you.

Thank you for being there.

I'll pray for your loved ones that you return to them with all the parts you left with.
1 post removed

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#33 Jun 24, 2013
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.
I respectfully disagree. I've met men from both sides, the ones doing the hunting and those who were burned at the stake.

With all due respect it's rather of arrogant for you to claim to know what these men went through, just because you never experienced it yourself.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#34 Jun 24, 2013
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.
Following orders was the same line the Nazis used.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#35 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Following orders was the same line the Nazis used.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#36 Jun 24, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. No one made them join the military. They knew the rule and decide to join under false pretence. That's what we call fraud.
Wait. Please show me where BEING GAY and not having any gay sex is a violation of the UCMJ.
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>I think this was wrong, but the fact's remain they signed Federal documents and were caught so there for they were discharged. That's like saying if America makes pot smoking legal that anyone kicked out of the military for doing pot should have their discharge changed also. The reason for rules is to enforce good order and discipline. I have to ask though are you gay? There is no consituinal right for you have a job if there is a law on the books. Happens everyday.
The fact is many weren't "caught".

And the "good order and discipline" dodge has been shown to be just that. A dodge.

The ones affecting the unit are those who worry about someone looking at their wee wee in the shower.

You said it yourself.

The job comes first. They did the job and got screwed.

There is a famous quote.

"They gave me medal for killing a man and a discharge for loving one."
4 posts removed

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#41 Jun 24, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Your ranting are just that. Rant's. First off the DADT was a article in the UCMJ. When you signed upped it was clear stated what the policy was, so the only way for someone to find out is if they told someone or got caught which is fraud when you stated you knew what DADT policy was. That is a violation of the UCMJ. Were you kicked out of the miltary and once again are you gay. They got screwed themselvs. They know the rule and still joined, got caught and discharged.
We'll just have to agree to respectfully disagree then.

Like I said I know guys who were discharged simply because they were accused of being gay.

I'm sure you not so naive that you don't think soldiers lie sometimes to cover their own butts.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#42 Jun 24, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
This was rule when Clinton passed it. Bootom line I don't this any one would risk a caree to send hit teams out.
Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on gays serving in the military from December 21, 1993, to September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The restrictions were mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160 (10 U.S.C.§ 654). The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".[1] The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces".[2] Since DADT ended in 2011, open gays and lesbians have been able to serve.
The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".[3]
A congressional bill to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period.[4] A July 6, 2011, ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members.[5] President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.[6]
Its Don't ask Don't tell DON'T PURSUE!

Get it right please.

Like how you seem ok ignoring that 'Don't Pursue' part of the rules you want enforced.

There's a word for that

Begins with H; 8 letters
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#43 Jun 24, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
This was rule when Clinton passed it.
That doesn't make the rule any less wrong, bub.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44 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.
You understand the problem.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a lame excuse for your hatred.
It's not "hatred".

This poster grasps the problem correctly.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46 Jun 25, 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.
Don't let my brothers and sisters rattle you. Their hair is on fire, is all.

If Citizens are to benefit from the Ex Post Facto provision of the Constitution, we must expect that there will be times when it works against us.

Those of our brothers and sisters who voluntarily entered the Military did so for many motivations, but it is reasonable to assume that they were willing to place their bodies and lives between home and enemy.

There is an actual shading to be recognized between those who served under the duress of the draft, and those who entered our all volunteer forces.

Still and despite the motivational shadings inherent in these two broad hues, there remains that these were fellow Citizens who were willing to serve, whether they remained silent about their orientation to forestall the social and legal ramifications of the times, or whether they truly wanted to serve despite it all and chose silence so that they could.

An aspect of this issue that has NEVER been addressed goes back to the purges of WWII: an inconsistency between the rationale for the discharges and the specific types of discharges rendered.

The U.S. Military prides itself on it's rationality, and Congress likes to posture in that direction periodically and assume it the rest of the time but, since the members of both are drawn from a widely pluralistic population, the ostensible motivations vary from these ideal considerably, and we are left with often very schizoid results in practice.

The advice and rationale for the UCMJ's proscriptions of gay participation in them Military derive from multiple sources, but two stand out above the rest: religious/social moralizers and psychiatry piggybacked on the medical profession's amici curiae status. The UCMJ's provisions betray these influences in in a very typically schizoid way.

Were gay orientation a purely moral concern, would it not have been appropriate for complaints and evaluations to come from the Chaplain Corp, and charges to be of "moral turpitude", and NOT require psychiatric evaluation before charging and discharge?

Were gay orientation a psychiatric medical condition, why is the discharge "Dishonorable" rather than "Medical"?

The UCMJ thoroughly conflates and confuses the two.

All other considerations aside, since the psychiatric premise has been proven invalid it is perfectly reasonable to ask that all Dishonorable Discharges predicated upon the postulated "psychiatric condition of homosexuality" be upgraded to "General".

How can a "psychiatric condition" which rendered a person unfit for the draft, become a crime when used as a rationale for separation from Military service?

THIS issue is the first topic for discussions regarding this matter.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#47 Jun 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Sorry, but each Citizen has the Right to waive any of their Rights.

In a VOLUNTARY enlistment, certain such waivers are assumed, and some are specified.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#48 Jun 25, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>27 and still counting.
Thank you ever so much for your service.

I think that my brothers and sisters are having difficulty parsing the multiple aspects to this broad issue.

They're also a scrappy bunch, and I love them for it, but they are amenable to reason ... IF you can get them to sit still to hear it.

We are a kind of walking wounded, gay people are, and we are engaged in a fight that has cost us far too many of our number from direct assault, abuse and neglect. This engenders a lot of resentment and anger. Most here have the 1000yd stare, and start at firecrackers. Please understand this as, I hope, you continue to discuss this issue from a Military insider's perspective.

Again, thank you for your long and committed service to the cause of Freedom, and the protection of those who cannot fight for themselves.

Those here do the same, just in a different sphere where the enemy is intangible in all but it's effects.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#49 Jun 25, 2013
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.
Laws themselves can be unjust, all the more so if they are predicated upon incorrect and irrational bases.

An area of misunderstanding is that our memories as a group stretch back further than DADTDP to a time when "witch hunts" were VERY real, and many of our loyal American brothers and sisters suffered directly under them.

Gay people were forced out of the middle class lives to which their loyal Citizenship, ambitions and achievements entitled them ... forced them into the lowest ghettos because no one would employ or rent to a "Dishonorable" "pervert". Lives wasted because there was a very real glass ceiling that simply barred them from getting on with their lives, and progressing to whatever level their talents and efforts could earn. The result of these "witch hunts" was to discount all that, leaving our number only the dregs of society's leavings.

Much gay cultural history results directly from such systemic ostracism, oppression and persecution.

Gay people are very well schooled in realism. What we are, also, is dreamers ... and very compassionate dreamers, at that, who have helped the causes of others who have been oppressed through no fault of their own.

Have you ever heard of this man?

http://stateofthereunion.com/home/season-2/ba...

I agree that the issue is the UCMJ. I agree that a point of consideration in that issue is that some violated it. But concomitantly a point is whether or not that issue was just at it's foundation, and what to do about it.

Law is predicated upon Justice, and when at it's best is an instrument of it ... not the other way around.

The REAL issue is whether or not an INjustice has occurred resulting in injury and cause for Aggrieved Status; and the Constitutional Right to Petition for a REDRESS of grievances.

If we can agree that a violation of Justice has occurred, and that there is just Cause for Grievance, then the question becomes: In Just Equity, what is the Just Redress of the Grievances?
2 posts removed
Troll Stopper

Alexandria, VA

#52 Jun 25, 2013
How do you correct something that's not wrong?
1 post removed
The Troll Stopper

Alexandria, VA

#54 Jun 25, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>God! Like talking to a bunch of pot heads. This was law then, so it was wrong to brak it and to being gay isn't wrong. Still doesn't matter because they broke the law. What is it that you freaking loons just don't understand.
I think I'm agreeing with you, so what's your problem?
1 post removed

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#56 Jun 25, 2013
Life As We Know It wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn’t matter. I already said I didn't agree with it, but the bottom line it was law that and if you broke the rule knowingly then you were discharge. They knew it, so it's their fault and no one else’s and a lot of people thinking pot being illegal is unjust, but when they make it legal doesn't mean you go back and let every pot dealer convicted free. They broke the law and knew what would happen if caught.
I understand that Ex Post Facto as two edges, and for good reason.

The Military has the principle that it is required of EVERY Serviceperson to disobey an illegal Command. What about an unjust one?

I get that the Military is a machine that doesn't like sand in it's gears. Good reasons for that. The question is, WHO was it actually gumming up the works? How?
2 posts removed
The Troll Stopper

Alexandria, VA

#59 Jun 25, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, I LIKE HAVING SEX WITH LITTLE BOYS

The REAL Troll Stopper
REPORTED for being a d!ck l!cking Sh!t eating child molesting fagg@t.
BYE
The Troll Stopper

Alexandria, VA

#60 Jun 25, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said before: I have sex with little boys from ages 8-14 years old. The REAL Troll Stopper.
You're on a major power trip aren't you? You're one sick Fagg@t.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Signed up Tinka 1,190,988
GOP Must Move On From Obamacare Repeal 3 min sandy1 53
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min wojar 184,935
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min republiCONS 172,139
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 min Belle Sexton 57,880
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 5 min Responsibility 1,830
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min Valerie 312,827
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 12 min Fox_Y_Fiends 582
More from around the web