Comments on: Justice Dept Asks for Stay of Injunction on DADT, Declares Intent to Appeal

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:35:17 +0000

Even the assumption that major tools and training are going to be needed, and that the need will apply to the majority instead of a very possibly small minority, are heterosexist assumptions of gargantuan proportions.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:29:01 +0000

You know, I want to sympathize with the administration and DOD, but our “fierce advocate” has made me a little cold to the military’s whining that we’re trying to go too fast. We have to keep in mind that while they’re hmming and hawwing, people are having their careers destroyed.

If it’s going to be too troublesome to do it overnight, that’s fine. Put the current discharges on hold, start up those briefings and sensitivity training NOW. This discriminatory policy has been going on for too long as it is, and the DOD wants us to nod complacently while they sit on their hands.

No. Not going to happen.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:50 +0000

And Dan Woods is one of my new heroes.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:24:42 +0000

Develop tools and training for the leadership and servicemembers. Stanley complains, “It will be difficult, if not impossible, to provide timely education to forces engaged in combat operations.”

To rephrase Stanley: Until such time as we can develop training programs for heterosexuals, the gays should be fired.

I’m sorry, Mr. Stanley, but I don’t accept your argument or the arrogant heterosexist premise on which it stands. Yes, training will be needed. But this change has been obviously projectable for years and it is unconscionable to demand that gay soldiers pay the price for the Pentagon’s lack of readiness.

By: Stefano A

Stefano A — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:16:20 +0000

If management does not know how to implement the ruling, get new managemet.

Or as I say, Obama better be lining up his next job.

It’s doubtful I’d vote for a Republican, but unless Obama runs unopposed on the 2012 Democratic ticket, and unless the other Democratic candidate is a complete nightmare, no way will I vote for Obama’s re-election.

By: Dennis W

Dennis W — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:59:35 +0000

Obama pledged to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when he took office. This ruling says that DADT is not constitutional. The reason to put a stay on the recent court ruling is not a challenge to constitutionality of DADT but because of ‘disruption in implementing the policy’. Sounds like a maangement problem. If the law is unconstitutional, end the practice now. If management does not know how to implement the ruling, get new managemet.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:52:20 +0000

Jandy, what puts the lie to this “it’ll create chaos and confusion” line is that the air force has already stopped enforcing DADT. Obviously it was no big deal to them and it’ll be no big deal to the reast of the service.

By: J L

J L — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:49:16 +0000

They could have said, “Please let us keep the darkies until at least next year’s harvest. We know slavery is wrong, but we can’t just let them all go.”

By: JandyA Says

JandyA Says — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:41:19 +0000

Since reading the DoD’s rationale on the immediate repeal, even as a former Navy career man and also a closeted gay man, I can’t help but question the order for immediate change to have been issued and wonder if it wasn’t created just to cause this major S.N.A.F.U. (The acronym for: Situation Normal, All Fu**ed-Up).

Obviously the rationale in the counter-argument is sound. So what EVER was this judge who issued the initial order thinking, other than creating chaos and confusion.

Much as I want the change to happen, this is NOT the way. And I think this Judge KNEW it would create this kind of chaos. Thanks a lot, Judge.

By: Doctor Whom

Doctor Whom — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:40:17 +0000

justsearching:

One could have said the same thing about school desegregation. Nonetheless, in both cases, courts had a job to do under Articles III and VI of the Constitution.