Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members, filed a lawsuit in 2004 seeking an injunction to stop the ban's enforcement. Phillips will draft the injunction with input from the group within a week, and the federal government will have a week to respond.

After-hours e-mails requesting comment from U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paul G. Freeborne and from the Pentagon were not immediately returned Thursday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if this judge has ever deployed. What does SHE know about military readiness?

Damn Activist Judges

SuperHornet wrote:I wonder if this judge has ever deployed. What does SHE know about military readiness?

Why is SHE in all caps? Are you suggesting that women aren't capable of understanding military readiness?

Absolutely

BlueHen86 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:I wonder if this judge has ever deployed. What does SHE know about military readiness?

Why is SHE in all caps? Are you suggesting that women aren't capable of understanding military readiness?

No. I'm suggesting that PEOPLE who have NOT served are not capable of understanding military readiness.

well that's pretty gay

My understanding is if the law is repealed, it would revert to the policies in effect before it was inacted. While I don't agree with DADT, the alternative until something changes is asking people what their sexual orientation is. This is something the Feds have danced around for a most of Obama's term. Do you think that will force them to act? I personally think that it's a trump card in politics right now and no side in national politics will act on it with anything other than words. This judge may have made things more difficult for the time being.

While I don't agree with DADT, to tie it to 1st amendment rights is laughable.

The 1st amendment has become the 'cach-all' for anything that doesn't fit somewhere else.

AZGrizFan wrote:While I don't agree with DADT, to tie it to 1st amendment rights is laughable.

The 1st amendment has become the 'cach-all' for anything that doesn't fit somewhere else.

Cough, cough, Palin and Dr. Laura, cough cough, Florida pastor, cough, cough.


Your Conk friends whore out the 1st Amendment any chance they get, Z, as long as it fits their backward purposes.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:While I don't agree with DADT, to tie it to 1st amendment rights is laughable.

The 1st amendment has become the 'cach-all' for anything that doesn't fit somewhere else.

Cough, cough, Palin and Dr. Laura, cough cough, Florida pastor, cough, cough.


Your Conk friends whore out the 1st Amendment any chance they get, Z, as long as it fits their backward purposes.

Examples, please? Note in my comment I never discussed a party connection. It's happening to a lot of amendments, but the 1st Amendment is abused the worst.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cough, cough, Palin and Dr. Laura, cough cough, Florida pastor, cough, cough.


Your Conk friends whore out the 1st Amendment any chance they get, Z, as long as it fits their backward purposes.

Examples, please? Note in my comment I never discussed a party connection. It's happening to a lot of amendments, but the 1st Amendment is abused the worst.

You asked for it, Z:

Talk host Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided to quit radio on Tuesday, after coming under fire for using the N-word repeatedly in a broadcast. "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what is on my mind," she told Larry King.

On Wednesday, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin picked up on the story, encouraging Dr. Laura. She wrote on Twitter: "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")." Later she added, "Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"


Owned.

Uh, any comments, Z? You got your proof.

Z? You out there, Z?

Benne wrote:My understanding is if the law is repealed, it would revert to the policies in effect before it was inacted. While I don't agree with DADT, the alternative until something changes is asking people what their sexual orientation is. This is something the Feds have danced around for a most of Obama's term. Do you think that will force them to act? I personally think that it's a trump card in politics right now and no side in national politics will act on it with anything other than words. This judge may have made things more difficult for the time being.

Let me get this right, so Obama is afraid to do what is right, due to fear of his popularity dropping.

Like Nike says, "just do it" Obama.

Gil Dobie wrote:

Benne wrote:My understanding is if the law is repealed, it would revert to the policies in effect before it was inacted. While I don't agree with DADT, the alternative until something changes is asking people what their sexual orientation is. This is something the Feds have danced around for a most of Obama's term. Do you think that will force them to act? I personally think that it's a trump card in politics right now and no side in national politics will act on it with anything other than words. This judge may have made things more difficult for the time being.

Let me get this right, so Obama is afraid to do what is right, due to fear of his popularity dropping.

Like Nike says, "just do it" Obama.

No. In my opinion, Obama is not willing to throw a party motivating political card back into the deck.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Examples, please? Note in my comment I never discussed a party connection. It's happening to a lot of amendments, but the 1st Amendment is abused the worst.

You asked for it, Z:

Talk host Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided to quit radio on Tuesday, after coming under fire for using the N-word repeatedly in a broadcast. "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what is on my mind," she told Larry King.

On Wednesday, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin picked up on the story, encouraging Dr. Laura. She wrote on Twitter: "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")." Later she added, "Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"


Owned.

Funny...you cite two ACTUAL 1st Amendment examples to prove YOUR point???

Benne wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Let me get this right, so Obama is afraid to do what is right, due to fear of his popularity dropping.

Like Nike says, "just do it" Obama.

No. In my opinion, Obama is not willing to throw a party motivating political card back into the deck.

Thing is, polls show 75-80% of Americans think that gays should be able to serve openly. Those that don't are never going to vote for Obama or Democrats in the first place.

This does, however, make it less likely for many Democrats to actually vote in November, do to the betrayal of promises.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Owned.

Funny...you cite two ACTUAL 1st Amendment examples to prove YOUR point???

But he said owned, so....

dbackjon wrote:

Benne wrote:
No. In my opinion, Obama is not willing to throw a party motivating political card back into the deck.

Thing is, polls show 75-80% of Americans think that gays should be able to serve openly. Those that don't are never going to vote for Obama or Democrats in the first place.

This does, however, make it less likely for many Democrats to actually vote in November, do to the betrayal of promises.

This is true, and if the Republicans refuse to bite in campaigns, you may see it happen.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

You asked for it, Z:

Talk host Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided to quit radio on Tuesday, after coming under fire for using the N-word repeatedly in a broadcast. "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what is on my mind," she told Larry King.

On Wednesday, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin picked up on the story, encouraging Dr. Laura. She wrote on Twitter: "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")." Later she added, "Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"


Owned.

Funny...you cite two ACTUAL 1st Amendment examples to prove YOUR point???

Translation: "Cap'n Cat was right again, so I have to Conk-flect away from that point and try to hide."

Bad, Z. Can't give props where they're due.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Funny...you cite two ACTUAL 1st Amendment examples to prove YOUR point???

Translation: "Cap'n Cat was right again, so I have to Conk-flect away from that point and try to hide."

Bad, Z. Can't give props where they're due.

Well, someone's ability to speak their mind on the radio is CERTAINLY a fuck of a lot closer to the 1st amendment rights inferred in the BOR than someone's ability to call themselves gay.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Translation: "Cap'n Cat was right again, so I have to Conk-flect away from that point and try to hide."

Bad, Z. Can't give props where they're due.

Well, someone's ability to speak their mind on the radio is CERTAINLY a fuck of a lot closer to the 1st amendment rights inferred in the BOR than someone's ability to call themselves gay.

It just KILLS you to even CONTEMPLATE admitting a Donk board buddy MIGHT have made his point in the face of flailing Conk flak, huh? Here's something novel: How about some ConkLove instead of ConkHate for fvcking once?

dbackjon wrote:

Benne wrote:
No. In my opinion, Obama is not willing to throw a party motivating political card back into the deck.

Thing is, polls show 75-80% of Americans think that gays should be able to serve openly. Those that don't are never going to vote for Obama or Democrats in the first place.

This does, however, make it less likely for many Democrats to actually vote in November, do to the betrayal of promises.

What polls?