Reply With Quote
What good does abolishing the method for gays to serve if they don't also remove the ban of gays serving?
the end of their existence as a great nation.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/15/house-dadt-vote/
==========
Gohmert, Semper Cretinous.
I find this vote amazing, the US finally getting one thing right, but the Senate Repugs are sure to filibuster or somehow make a of lot of noise, to appease all their "Christian" hate organizations.
What good does abolishing the method for gays to serve if they don't also remove the ban of gays serving?
WC, I think the reasoning is that they would also remove the ban on gays serving. It's just easier to say, "Repeal DADT" then "Repeal DADT and also make it legal for gays to serve".
Yet last time I brought up this same point, nobody showed me in the legislation what you ASS-U-me to be true!
Well, common sense would tell you that people are trying to allow gays to serve in the military, and not get them kicked out easier.
Since you're the one wondering, why don't you look up the legislation and see how it addresses your concern?
Ain't you assuming just as much by not looking?
Damn, WC is stupid.
There have always been gays in the military, look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw
Ideology and "organized religion" makes one stupid, and often hateful and finally murderous.
Really? You meet that criteria, boutonski. Are you into organized religion?
The House and Senate bills repeal 10 USC s. 653, which prohibits sexual service in the military (or at least commands that an outed sexual be separated from service). As far as I can tell, there is no other law that prohibits service by sexuals; there are statutory allowances for the DOD to make regulations concerning the qualifications to serve, but the current bills certainly seem to reign-in that rule-making authority on the issue of sexuals serving in the military. DOD regulations are not law -- they exist only to the extent that Congress allows them to exist. If the current bills don't limit that rulemaking authority on the subject, it's a simple matter of revising the existing rule-making authority to do just that.
It would be pretty ridiculous for DOD to promulgate regulations that overtly defy Congressional policy choices; for that reason, any potential loophole is ultimately a non-starter, since it seems relatively apparent that such defiance is unlikely.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
