Full article here: Click
Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach, a fighter weapons systems officer, has been flying the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1998. He has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, including the longest combat mission in his squadron's history. On that infamous September 11, 2001, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was handpicked to fly sorties above the nation's capital. Later he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, one of them for heroism, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is now a flight instructor in Idaho, where he has passed on his skills to more than 300 future Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force weapons systems officers.
Remember to see the video at the end of the article.
Now, why was Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach fired?
He's gay.
Normally, I'm not a big fan of anything (real world, present day) military, I find it a sad testament to the violent nature of humanity that we still need to engage in wars.
That said, I find it even more appaling that someone who has served dutifully and honorable for 18 years (just two years shy of being able to retire with a full pension) is being fired because of the backward ideology that homosexual members of society is a "danger" to the armed forces.
Sickening I say.
I, for one, agree. While I'm not one to approve of that lifestyle, I find this kind of action reprehensible. Who cares what his orientation is? He has served this country in a capacity that is far and away greater and more honorable than the majority of Americans ever will. He should be treated with the respect, dignity, and honor that a man of his courage and stature deserves.
|
I'll say this once and only once. Being gay is not a choice. I know this cause I am gay, and fraternize with lots of other gay people and get involved in the gay community. Out of the hundreds of gay people I have met, none of them have ever made a choice to be gay. Discriminating against gays is exactly the same as discriminating against skin color or race or gender. The "Don't ask don't tell" policy is in the same rationale as apartheid of south africa, both are prejudice laws. Anyone who is teaching against someone who had no choice of who and what they are, and calling it a sin or a "lifestyle" are purely and simply teaching discrimination and prejudice. People need to grow up.
I empathize with what youre saying here:
The "Don't ask don't tell" policy is exactly the same as apartheid of south africa.
But I'm sorry it's not the same as Apartheid was in South Africa.
Aparthied:
Apartheid—meaning separateness in Afrikaans (which is cognate to the English apart and -hood)—was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government in South Africa between 1948 and 1994.
Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times, but apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. New legislation classified inhabitants into racial groups (black, white, coloured, and Indian), and residential areas were segregated by means of forced removals. Blacks were stripped of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands or bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of whites.
It's not even the same as Jim Crow.
The bottom line for me anyway is that while you can hide or not disclose that you are in fact gay or lesbian (not that you should or absolutely need to. EVER.) there's pretty much no hiding the fact that when a black man walks down the street in south africa or here in the US that he's black. This is not a "who's suffered more" argument but this need to be put in some sort of perspective.
|
|
The bottom line for me anyway is that while you can hide or not disclose that you are in fact gay or lesbian (not that you should or absolutely need to. EVER.) there's pretty much no hiding the fact that when a black man walks down the street in south africa or here in the US that he's black. This is not a "who's suffered more" argument but this need to be put in some sort of perspective.
The problem is you should never have to hide who you are ever. And prolonged effort to do so is psychologically dangerous and damaging. You wwill eventually either have to come out or damage your self- esteem and peace of mind to a point of no repair. There is a reason suicide rates are so high among homosexuals. And I don't belittle the suffering of african american citizens, or the black population of South Africa. I say that intolerance against black people, and intolerance against homosexuals is exactly the same it's an irrational hatred thats completely despicable and has no place in society.
I mean in the sense they are both prejudice, and a form of discrimination. Maybe it was a bad example so I will edit the comment with the seperation of race of the 50's/ 60's both are discrimination.
They ARE both essentially separate but equal policies it's just when someone makes that kind of comparison, while you and I might understand the degree between the two policies I think alot of other people, especially the people who grew up with seeing sound bytes of it here in the US, really don't.
That being said, I saw this thing about the Air Force Pilot being fired on the Huffington Post I was pretty pissed off about it and I'm neither gay or military. I did one of the only things that I thought that I could do at the time, put a link to the article on the front of my Facebook page.
I know that's kinda weak sauce but, when my friends hit up my page they'll see it and maybe they'll pass the link onto someone else and so on and so on....
|
That seems like splitting hairs. Obviously, since we are talking about two different eras of history, and there are different issues at play with how those groups are identified, the metaphor may not be perfect. Metaphors seldom are.
The point is, discrimination is discrimination, and I think it may be a little hard to see how very pervasive it is from the outside. Sadly, what happened to this pilot is not an isolated incident - it happens with regularity in the US military.
I am, of course, appalled and disappointed at this incident, but not surprised. My partner was fired from a job about 6 years ago for being gay, completely legally (it did not become illegal in New York state until a few years ago). I pay about 30% more in income taxes than I would if I was straight. Then there are larger issues, like lack of Social Security survivor benefits, inheritance issues, and so on.
Hardly a week or day goes by that I'm not reminded in some way that the US government regards my relationship as less valid than a heterosexual one. Is it analogous to other forms of discrimination throughout history? Yes. Is it identical? Of course not.
|
|
I mean in the sense they are both prejudice, and a form of discrimination. Maybe it was a bad example so I will edit the comment with the seperation of race of the 50's/ 60's both are discrimination.They ARE both essentially separate but equal policies it's just when someone makes that kind of comparison, while you and I might understand the degree between the two policies I think alot of other people, especially the people who grew up with seeing sound bytes of it here in the US, really don't.
That being said, I saw this thing about the Air Force Pilot being fired on the Huffington Post I was pretty pissed off about it and I'm neither gay or military. I did one of the only things that I thought that I could do at the time, put a link to the article on the front of my Facebook page.
I know that's kinda weak sauce but, when my friends hit up my page they'll see it and maybe they'll pass the link onto someone else and so on and so on....
Like I say I understand the seriousness of the apartheid laws of South Africa, one of my best friends is from south africa she grew up in the poor end of Johannesburg, and she now lives here in Canada. I love her to death and value her friendship, but she suffered horrible things in her youth from this evil policy, so I do understand more than most.
The bottom line for me anyway is that while you can hide or not disclose that you are in fact gay or lesbian (not that you should or absolutely need to. EVER.) there's pretty much no hiding the fact that when a black man walks down the street in south africa or here in the US that he's black. This is not a "who's suffered more" argument but this need to be put in some sort of perspective.
The problem is you should never have to hide who you are ever. And prolonged effort to do so is psychologically dangerous and damaging. You wwill eventually either have to come out or damage your self- esteem and peace of mind to a point of no repair. There is a reason suicide rates are so high among homosexuals. And I don't belittle the suffering of african american citizens, or the black population of South Africa. I say that intolerance against black people, and intolerance against homosexuals is exactly the same it's an irrational hatred thats completely despicable and has no place in society.
Just so that we're on the same page, I didnt think that you WERE belittling black folk with the comparison at all. And like I said at the beginning I empathize, I really do. I was the black kid who got picked on for "talking white" and "playing white boys games" i.e D&D. It's totally not the same as being picked on for being gay but it's somewhere in the same galaxy. Some how in a lot of AA communities liking to read and using your smarts = not masculine. I got called F*gg*t ALOT. It wasnt until I started being able to deal out one or two utterly brutal beatings that they started leaving me alone. So yeah, like I said not the same thing but on some level I understand.
Okay, lets let the thread get back on track. I feel that this is one thread that really shouldnt be derailed...
|
...and how many gays were beaten to death for being gay? Why is the term "fagbashing" out there? It's not just something skinheads do, jocks do it too...to be cool...
I empathize that Apartheid was brutal and state sanctioned, but "Don't ask, don't tell" is also a form of segregation..."gays not welcome in military"
No I'm not gay, but I support gay rights, and gay marriage...because if one of my kids ends up being gay, I don't want them to be afraid to tell me, or feel I discriminated against them.
Now, why was Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach fired?
He's gay.
Disgusting and equally disgusting that politicians of both parties have let these shameful policies continue when they could be ended at any time. Several years ago they drummed a half-dozen recruits who were learning Arabic out of the service for teh ghey too.
...and how many gays were beaten to death for being gay? Why is the term "f!*bashing" out there? It's not just something skinheads do, jocks do it too...to be cool...
I empathize that Apartheid was brutal and state sanctioned, but "Don't ask, don't tell" is also a form of segregation..."gays not welcome in military"
No I'm not gay, but I support gay rights, and gay marriage...because if one of my kids ends up being gay, I don't want them to be afraid to tell me, or feel I discriminated against them.
The Apartheid / Gay Rights comparison thing was pretty much settled upthread I think.
Look, I'm sorry I de-railed the thread. Can we get back to talking about the Air Force guy?
|
|
...and how many gays were beaten to death for being gay? Why is the term "f!*bashing" out there? It's not just something skinheads do, jocks do it too...to be cool...
I empathize that Apartheid was brutal and state sanctioned, but "Don't ask, don't tell" is also a form of segregation..."gays not welcome in military"
No I'm not gay, but I support gay rights, and gay marriage...because if one of my kids ends up being gay, I don't want them to be afraid to tell me, or feel I discriminated against them.
The Apartheid / Gay Rights comparison thing was pretty much settled upthread I think.
Look, I'm sorry I de-railed the thread. Can we get back to talking about the Air Force guy?
I really really tried see my last post.
I really really tried see my last post....and how many gays were beaten to death for being gay? Why is the term "f!*bashing" out there? It's not just something skinheads do, jocks do it too...to be cool...
I empathize that Apartheid was brutal and state sanctioned, but "Don't ask, don't tell" is also a form of segregation..."gays not welcome in military"
No I'm not gay, but I support gay rights, and gay marriage...because if one of my kids ends up being gay, I don't want them to be afraid to tell me, or feel I discriminated against them.
The Apartheid / Gay Rights comparison thing was pretty much settled upthread I think.
Look, I'm sorry I de-railed the thread. Can we get back to talking about the Air Force guy?
Yeah, I know I saw that. My last wasnt aimed at you at all.
Serves me right for posting in the first place.
*backs away from the thread slowly*
|
|
To be fair I think they are saying Discrimination is discrimination. It has no degrees non is worse than the other, intolerance against Race/gender/sexuality, are all equally bad. I understand to you personally the race hatred hits close to home as does the gay hatred with me, but it's the same thing hating someone for who they are and its wrong. Now lets get back to Don't ask Don't tell.
...and how many gays were beaten to death for being gay?
More than we'll ever know, but they used to keep track of the ones that the state executed. I've read some of the reports.
All I can do is relate my sadness at another injustice and work to help bring about true, positive, and PEACEFUL change by working within the framework of our society. This is why we march folks. Not to be naked freaks in the streets but to call attention to the fact that people like this and others should not suffer this kind of indignity.
On a different note I feel a personal sense of relief that it didn’t happen to me. I was in the U.S. Navy for 4 yrs and I loved it. I would have loved to have made a career out of it. However the realization that if I stayed the chances of me being found out were greater and greater made me make the choice to leave with what benefits I had and seek civilian work but OMG how I miss the navy and I loved my ship.
I would go back in a heart beat even back through that boot camp BS to serve again but they don’t want people that would love to serve only people that serve the way they want. I was always afraid that if I stayed I would lose my G.I.bill and my chance at a degree so I took the money and ran but it is with profound sadness I can say I would have stayed and been happy if they had let me serve without fear.
My sympathy to the airman that was forced out. He took a gamble and lost but so did the air force and america as a whole.
I'd rather have had a dependable person of whatever orientation in my squad, than someone who always said the right thing. As I heard one wise man phrase it, "I don't give a damn if someone watches my backside, so long as he's also watching my back." Unfortunately, there's a small but very active, very vocal, and very powerful element in the U.S. armed forces that has deep antipathy and mistrust for any but Straight, Christian* soldiers -- as if those two aspects were all it could possibly take to judge someone as "dependable" or not. Until that minority is uprooted, some of the very best servicemen will be forced out, or will refuse to join in the first place, and the U.S. is the ultimate loser whenever that happens.
* The Service has something of a "don't ask/don't tell" policy for atheists as well, or at least it did when I was in.
|
|
This might make me unpopular in this thread, but based on my experience as an Air Force cop I'm willing to bet that something more is going on then just the guy being gay. Granted, commanders are given leeway in enforcing don't ask, don't tell; but my experience was that unless you did something embarrassing to the Air Force, like show up at a Gay Pride event in your uniform, you were pretty much okay. I only saw one person get court marshaled as a result of don't ask, don't tell and that was because he was charged with some other things and the presiding officer wanted to protect the accused's otherwise stellar reputation. That being said, it is a stupid rule and should be gotten rid of.
|
but OMG how I miss the navy and I loved my ship.
On a lighter note when I read this line "in the Navy" by the village people started playing in my head :D
On topic though don't ask don't tell is a stupid policy in a line of stupid policies culminating in states ammending their constitutions to prevent gay marraige. I hate anti-gay discriminatory legislation with a passion because i've litterally seen the progression of racist ignorant slobs from one group to be afraid of to another. It used to be okay where I worked to be racist against black people (I never was but I didn't rock the boat when other people spewed their ignorance) but as it became less and less socially acceptable to be racist against black people at my shop (especially after I fell in love with a black woman and realized that not rocking the boat was evil and started threatening to beat the crap out of them when they spewed that $%#&) then suddenly black people were okay, but insults started flying around about hispanics, when that stopped being kosher it was as they call it "the gays". Now they know better than to talk about any group around the shop but the whole point of this story is that gay people are just the latest group and once society moves on from hating them, ignorant a%+$%&%s will pick some new demographic to hate, I'm seeing it start now and get worse, it's muslims, or as racist idiots call them, the arabs. God I hate living in the deep south sometimes.
On a last lighter note if anyone ever argues in favor of the state constitution ammendments because it will "stop the gays who keep pushing the issue" (I have literaly heard this stupid argument followed up with an even stupider "next thing you know they'll be wanting to adopt children") what you do is ask them if being gay is a choice. which they'll say yes to. The next thing you say is "that's funny none of the gay people I know think its a choice, why would you think it's a choice unless you yourself have found yourself attracted to the same sex and chose to ignore it." the flustered nonsensical arguments to follow will leave you laughing for weeks.
|
|
Speaking of nonsensical arguments...
Clearly not well thought out, since the implication is that it's bad for the economy for anybody to get married, and therefore it should be discouraged.
|
|
On a last lighter note if anyone ever argues in favor of the state constitution ammendments because it will "stop the gays who keep pushing the issue" (I have literaly heard this stupid argument followed up with an even stupider "next thing you know they'll be wanting to adopt children") what you do is ask them if being gay is a choice. which they'll say yes to. The next thing you say is "that's funny none of the gay people I know think its a choice, why would you think it's a choice unless you yourself have found yourself attracted to...
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. - Steven Colbert (In response to the unconstutionalizatiion of gay adoption in florida).
Then there's the dumb@$$ argument that marriage isn't a right its a priviledge. To you I say it doesn't matter it's still inequality if your gonna give legal priviledges to someone for being straight.
This might make me unpopular in this thread, but based on my experience as an Air Force cop I'm willing to bet that something more is going on then just the guy being gay. Granted, commanders are given leeway in enforcing don't ask, don't tell; but my experience was that unless you did something embarrassing to the Air Force, like show up at a Gay Pride event in your uniform, you were pretty much okay. I only saw one person get court marshaled as a result of don't ask, don't tell and that was because he was charged with some other things and the presiding officer wanted to protect the accused's otherwise stellar reputation. That being said, it is a stupid rule and should be gotten rid of.
I dont think your valid opinion will make you unpopular here. As far as I know we are all adults or at least mature enough to carry on a civil exchange of ideas.
To that point I do agree with you that there WAS probaly more to it than just his being gay. We had some "out" ppl on the ship and nobody cared as long as they did their job but we all knew it only takes 1 person that feels it's their "duty" to enforce the presidents order and your carrer is down the drain.I appreciate you bringing up that point in the discussion. Now it makes me wonder more about the story and I am curious enough to try and investigate instead of relying on just one news source. Thank you for serving and good gaming.
|
|
Speaking of nonsensical arguments...
Clearly not well thought out, since the implication is that it's bad for the economy for anybody to get married, and therefore it should be discouraged.
Oh yes the it's okay as long as it's a straight person costing me money, but if it's a gay guy costing me money hey I have the right to be upset.
Oh wait I forgot, all straight people agreed that none of them who are single would ever get married again, so the arguement can be made that suddenly I have to pay more money cause gay people can get married.
This might make me unpopular in this thread, but based on my experience as an Air Force cop I'm willing to bet that something more is going on then just the guy being gay. Granted, commanders are given leeway in enforcing don't ask, don't tell; but my experience was that unless you did something embarrassing to the Air Force, like show up at a Gay Pride event in your uniform, you were pretty much okay. I only saw one person get court marshaled as a result of don't ask, don't tell and that was because he was charged with some other things and the presiding officer wanted to protect the accused's otherwise stellar reputation. That being said, it is a stupid rule and should be gotten rid of.I dont think your valid opinion will make you unpopular here. As far as I know we are all adults or at least mature enough to carry on a civil exchange of ideas.
To that point I do agree with you that there WAS probaly more to it than just his being gay. We had some "out" ppl on the ship and nobody cared as long as they did their job but we all knew it only takes 1 person that feels it's their "duty" to enforce the presidents order and your carrer is down the drain.
I appreciate you bringing up that point in the discussion. Now it makes me wonder more about the story and I am curious enough to try and investigate instead of relying on just one news source. Thank you for serving and good gaming.
Well like when McGreevey annouced he was a gay American and had an afair with a man while married and thus was stepping down as governor. That was far from the whole truth but he used it to buy sympathy.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. - Steven Colbert (In response to the unconstutionalizatiion of gay adoption in florida).
Then there's the dumb@$$ argument that marriage isn't a right its a priviledge. To you I say it doesn't matter it's still inequality if your gonna give legal priviledges to someone for being straight.
So I should have maternity leave available?
Or if it's a right, you have to throw out blood tests, relative requirements, age requirments etc. Else you're denying someone their 'right' to be married to someone they love.
Though I guess if there's a genetic marker, aborting potentially gay babies is just fine.
I've commented on various posts on the topics here and, here, here, and on DADT here. I'm not one of the owners of the blog (Though I've been lucky enough to meet Dan and buy lunch) but I comment frequently under my nom-de-cyber, The_Livewire. This one lists a good chunk of my posts on the Ohio DOMA, which I voted for. You'll also want to read the articles by ColoradoPatriot, I think he's still actively serving
I can't access Huffpo from work (and don't have any immodium on me anyway) so I can't read the original article. If he was outed by someone asking, then I think the CinC should be able to/should have already suspend the investigation. If he did a Lt. Choi, then he deserves to be booted for not following the rules.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I really, really, really shouldn't post on a controversial thread at all, much less on my blackberry where it's hard to type and review. But, given that wisdom has long been my dump stat...
I'm not sympathetic to the argument that there is no choice involved in being gay. I agree there's no choice involved in who or what a person is attracted to or what they find arousing, but any act of sex (outside of rape, which isn't what we are talking about) is a choice. A person can choose to forego sex. They can choose to continue having sex with a partner to whom they are committed even though such partner is no longer their ideal sexual partner. I can't accept that there should be a legal right to have whatever type of sex a person finds most satisfying - it strikes me as a potentially slippery slope.
I don't have a problem with people making those choices (assuming, again, that we are talking about consensual sex). I also acknowledge that there are other choices in our society that are recognized as rights, the primary one being religious belief (though again, I'd wager that some people would say that their religious beliefs are not a choice, but are a result of their contact with a divine entity).
And again, there are limits placed on which choices will be condoned and accepted by society.
So, I am left with the question of whether consensual sex is of the same nature as religious choice. Generally, I would say yes. I believe sexual preference is as core to a person's identity and liberties as religious beliefs.
But for me, that's where I draw the line. People should be able to engage in the relationship that they find most fullfilling and meaningful. And, as with the choice of religion, that choice shouldn't be valid grounds for discrimination.
That being said, the idea that sexual choice is a fundamental liberty is a relatively new development in America. Western culture has long sought to control, criminalize, and restrict sexual choices. I support the idea that such choices should be identified and accepted, but I'm very wary of using courts and the government to impose that view. In effect, if we as a culture determine that sexual choice is a fundamental liberty, that liberty needs to be recognized and granted through the people that are the source of our government to be legitimate. I don't like framing this as a right without either amending the constutution or having voter approved recognition. I think having the courts grant such rights polarizes an issue that I expect, in our lifetime, will resolve itself through the normal social processes.
Or, to put it differently, I don't see this issue as a civil rights issue in general, I see it as a referendum on which liberties we believe to be fundamental and worth protecting. I believe sexual identity is such a liberty, but this view is a recent development in our society and needs to be legitimized and accepted by the population in general. Again, I think we are moving in that direction, but we need to have a conversation to determine the limits of that liberty, just as we have placed certain limits on other liberties. There has to be an agreement that this particular sexual choice should be a liberty while other sexyal choices (or religious pra9tices) are not.
As to the topic of the thread, it does seem unjust and wrong to fire this man for practicing a fundamental liberty. I beilieve the policy should be changed to protect him, but I see the legislature as the appropriate vehicle for such changes, and not the courts.
A lot of stuff better than I could have said.
Agreed.
But, given that wisdom has long been my dump stat...
I knew it!
Of course, I have the same problem...
;-)
|
|
If it is framed as a civil liberties issue, which Sebastian's post ultimately does, the courts should absolutely be involved. While I would love it if all of it could be settled legislatively, the fact is the very nature of constitutional government gives the responsibility to the judiciary of protecting people and ideologies that are in the majority.
Theoretically, a majority of white people in the United States could vote to restore racial segregation. Obviously at this point, I find it extremely unlikely that that would happen, but would there have been a majority for that in the 1950s and 60s? Quite possibly.
The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to protect minority views. If you are proclaiming an opinion that the majority of people hold, you don't need a constitutional right to freedom of speech, because the majority of voters are backing you up anyway. That freedom protects the voices of those whose opinions are unpopular.
Similarly, if we wait until a majority of people support gay marriage, or any other gay right, we could be waiting indefinitely, because a hetersexual majority has no vested interest in the struggles of gay people. I'm not saying that that is a given - obviously attitudes toward GLBT rights are constantly progressing, and it ultimately may be a moot point, but deciding that the legal protections for a group of people who are in the minority should be solely subject to the will of the majority is contrary to the values of individual liberty and equality.
...deciding that the legal protections for a group of people who are in the minority should be solely subject to the will of the majority is contrary to the values of individual liberty and equality.
That pretty much sums it up for me.
Though, I do believe that, even as a heterosexual man, I have a vested interested in the rights of homosexuals. We're all people. I'm sure some will roll their eyes, but, in a very real way, any assault on anyone's liberty is an assault on mine.
Ok, home now.
Can anyone point me to a link where this started? I'm curious if it's a matter of someone asking, or him telling.
There is that link in the first post. Several other comments I've been finding I can't seem to point to that article first.
I can't find mentions either way how others found out, or how many people knew of his orientation (although I have seen mentions of only 10 people of the 4000 people on the base knowing about the case until it was announced, and that those were the "immediate chain of command, a couple of attorneys in the legal office, and a couple of officers in the Office of Special Investigations". I'm not sure if that also means that very few people actually knew about his orientation as well.)
Well it is official.
Hell just froze over.
I agree with Sebastian. :-S
Good thing I prefer the Abyss.
|
I think what the OP boils down to is here is a man who has dedicated his life to protecting his nation, basicly offered himself up for sacrifice if need be, and doesn't have the same rights as everyone else? I call bulls***! Anyone who serves in the military deserves respect and grattitude. I have spoken out on this topic on my facebook page, even put together a "cause" group speaking out against it. Gay or straight we should all be free to live our lives as we feel, as long as that lifestyle does not harm others. Untill we as a nation stand behind the rights of our brothers and sisters we will never truly be a free nation.
Kirk M Moore.
I have a problem with scapegoating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the spate of discharges in the military. It was a half-assed policy put forth by the Waffler in Chief, but incumbent in gays being able to serve as long as they were closeted (which was a change from not being able to serve at all) was the expectation that authorities in the military not ask. That's the side of the social compact that has been repeatedly broken, to our collective detriment.
As far as the current situation goes, there have been disturbing reports over the last decade about religious groups, particularly on the fundamentalist end, proselytizing in the armed forces, particularly the Air Force. It's possible that the environment that you are familiar with, David, has changed or is changing in a direction that's even more hostile to homosexuality.
|
|
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. - Steven Colbert (In response to the unconstutionalizatiion of gay adoption in florida).
Then there's the dumb@$$ argument that marriage isn't a right its a priviledge. To you I say it doesn't matter it's still inequality if your gonna give legal priviledges to someone for being straight.So I should have maternity leave available?
Or if it's a right, you have to throw out blood tests, relative requirements, age requirments etc. Else you're denying someone their 'right' to be married to someone they love.
Though I guess if there's a genetic marker, aborting potentially gay babies is just fine.
I've commented on various posts on the topics here and, here, here, and on DADT here. I'm not one of the owners of the blog (Though I've been lucky enough to meet Dan and buy lunch) but I comment frequently under my nom-de-cyber, The_Livewire. This one lists a good chunk of my posts on the Ohio DOMA, which I voted for. You'll also want to read the articles by ColoradoPatriot, I think he's still actively serving
I can't access Huffpo from work (and don't have any immodium on me anyway) so I can't read the original article. If he was outed by someone asking, then I think the CinC should be able to/should have already suspend the investigation. If he did a Lt. Choi, then he deserves to be booted for not following the rules.
Actually in Canada and in a lot of other european country the man can go on maternity leave. The only stipulation is that only one parent gets it. Theres something to be said about age of consent (by the way if your implying homosexuality has something to do with pedophilia thats disgusting). Listen the law cannot withhold rights or PRIVILEDGES toward two consenting adults. Otherwise it is just plain homophobia disguised as some legal bulls**t.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The problem is that rights and liberties need to come from someplace. In the case of our gov't, they originally came from the people being governed. There is no evidence that sexual preference was intended to be included in the rights originally embodied in the constitution. This is essentially a new liberty. Not all liberties are protected by the Constitution or existing laws. If this sexual choice is deemed an essential liberty by courts, there is a risk that the exact same arguments could be made for other choices. That places the courts in the position of creating new rights which have not traditionally been part of American jurisprudence. The appropriate route for such changes is the legislature. Using the judiciary to create such rights is extremely dangerous. Those who do not view sexual freedom as a right are likely to feel disenfranchised and the court risks not having its decisions implemented. At the end of the day, the only mechanism the court has to enforce its choices is the cooperation of the other branches of government. If the court is seen as overstepping its bounds, the other branches may not enforce their policies and we could risk a constitutional crisis as a result.
This is the creation of a new liberty; this is not the protection of a minority position within an existing recognized liberty. In addition, there is tension between this liberty and religious liberties, which makes the need for discussion and consensus building even more important. If we, as a society, are going to determine that this is a liberty we wish to acknowledge and accept, the legislature is the appropriate avenue for such a determination. Once the liberty has found purchase, it is the court's duty to interpret the bounds of that liberty.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually in Canada and in a lot of other european country the man can go on maternity leave. The only stipulation is that only one parent gets it. Theres something to be said about age of consent (by the way if your implying homosexuality has something to do with pedophilia thats disgusting). Listen the law cannot withhold rights or PRIVILEDGES toward two consenting adults. Otherwise it is just plain homophobia disguised as some legal bulls**t.
Interesting about the materinity leave. And thank you for not automatically assuming I'm saying Homosexual = pedophile. I'm not. Though NAMLBA is a vile organization and should be prosecuted.
And yes, the law can withhold priviledges. If you have bad vision you can't drive, for example. Right now, the state limits marriage to certain people. You have to be of age (varies by state) you have to be able to consent (the insane can't get married) you can't be married to anyone else (who wants more than one wife anyway? That goes back to the previous point) and in (most) states you have to be of the opposite sex. The benefits of marriage are not just enshrined in tradition or faith, they're enshrined in law as well. And it's through the legislative process it should be changed.
In the various articles I've found covering the air force officer, I can't find how he was 'outed'. That's a big piece of the puzzle for me.
|
|
The problem is that rights and liberties need to come from someplace. In the case of our gov't, they originally came from the people being governed. There is no evidence that sexual preference was intended to be included in the rights originally embodied in the constitution. This is essentially a new liberty. Not all liberties are protected by the Constitution or existing laws. If this sexual choice is deemed an essential liberty by courts, there is a risk that the exact same arguments could be made for other choices. That places the courts in the position of creating new rights which have not traditionally been part of American jurisprudence. The appropriate route for such changes is the legislature. Using the judiciary to create such rights is extremely dangerous. Those who do not view sexual freedom as a right are likely to feel disenfranchised and the court risks not having its decisions implemented. At the end of the day, the only mechanism the court has to enforce its choices is the cooperation of the other branches of government. If the court is seen as overstepping its bounds, the other branches may not enforce their policies and we could risk a constitutional crisis as a result.
This is the creation of a new liberty; this is not the protection of a minority position within an existing recognized liberty. In addition, there is tension between this liberty and religious liberties, which makes the need for discussion and consensus building even more important. If we, as a society, are going to determine that this is a liberty we wish to acknowledge and accept, the legislature is the appropriate avenue for such a determination. Once the liberty has found purchase, it is the court's duty to interpret the bounds of that liberty.
I think a big part of things would be an amendment saying that a church does not have to accept a gay wedding if the church itself disagrees with homosexuality. Honestly I can't see why you'd want to get married in such a church anyway, but hey thats just me.
|
|
I'm not sympathetic to the argument that there is no choice involved in being gay. I agree there's no choice involved in who or what a person is attracted to or what they find arousing, but any act of sex (outside of rape, which isn't what we are talking about) is a choice. A person can choose to forego sex. They can choose to continue having sex with a partner to whom they are committed even though such partner is no longer their ideal sexual partner. I can't accept that there should be a legal right to have whatever type of sex a person finds most satisfying - it strikes me as a potentially slippery slope.
While I agree with you on some points Sebastian, this first bit of your post does rub me a bit the wrong way. If you agree that there is no choice involved in who or what a person finds attractive or arousing, then how can you turn around and state that homosexuality is a choice?
Is having sex truly the determining factor? If a person is attracted to members of their same gender and not the opposite gender, but never engages in sex, does that mean they are not homosexual? If that same person ends up having sex with a member of the opposite sex for whatever reason, does that make them heterosexual? Is this same logic then to be applied to heterosexuals whereby they are not heterosexuals until they actually have sex? The slippery slope I find is in this course of logic.
The question isn't whether there should be a legal right to have whatever type of sex one finds most satisfying (I hope we can all agree practices such as necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia are not acceptable), but whether two consenting adults of the same gender should be afforded the same rights as consenting adults who are of opposite gender.
In a country where equality has been fought for and won by other segments of the society who were, at the time of the founding of this country, not given equality (read women, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc), it seems ludicrous to take a stance (and I am not claiming this is your stance Sebastian) that one group should be singled out for, in essence, second class status at worst and "separate but 'equal'" (you can have a civil union but not get married) status at best. [EDIT: This is changing on a state by state basis, but as far as the rights legally afforded a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the Fed, the disparity still by and large continues.]
Just my 2cp for what it's worth.
|
I think a big part of things would be an amendment saying that a church does not have to accept a gay wedding if the church itself disagrees with homosexuality. Honestly I can't see why you'd want to get married in such a church anyway, but hey thats...The problem is that rights and liberties need to come from someplace. In the case of our gov't, they originally came from the people being governed. There is no evidence that sexual preference was intended to be included in the rights originally embodied in the constitution. This is essentially a new liberty. Not all liberties are protected by the Constitution or existing laws. If this sexual choice is deemed an essential liberty by courts, there is a risk that the exact same arguments could be made for other choices. That places the courts in the position of creating new rights which have not traditionally been part of American jurisprudence. The appropriate route for such changes is the legislature. Using the judiciary to create such rights is extremely dangerous. Those who do not view sexual freedom as a right are likely to feel disenfranchised and the court risks not having its decisions implemented. At the end of the day, the only mechanism the court has to enforce its choices is the cooperation of the other branches of government. If the court is seen as overstepping its bounds, the other branches may not enforce their policies and we could risk a constitutional crisis as a result.
This is the creation of a new liberty; this is not the protection of a minority position within an existing recognized liberty. In addition, there is tension between this liberty and religious liberties, which makes the need for discussion and consensus building even more important. If we, as a society, are going to determine that this is a liberty we wish to acknowledge and accept, the legislature is the appropriate avenue for such a determination. Once the liberty has found purchase, it is the court's duty to interpret the bounds of that liberty.
Yep. If more of the GLBT community had your attitude, progress would come much quicker, frankly. But, right now, they're stuck on stupid about the best way to get what they want. Generating resentment with the majority on an issue isn't the best way to get the majority to accept the issue.
As to gays in the military: yes, "don't ask, don't tell" is stupid. Yes, excluding anyone fit to serve because of sexual orientation is stupid.
But, where is the concession to the feelings of straight men? Oh, right, they aren't worth consideration, they just need to get over it.
That's the attitude that needs to change. That happens, and great things could as well.
|
|
But, where is the concession to the feelings of straight men? Oh, right, they aren't worth consideration, they just need to get over it.
That's the attitude that needs to change. That happens, and great things could as well.
I don't think it's so much a "need to get over it" as it is a "need to accept it". As a straight male, I have been in the situation where I have been propositioned by another male. I am comfortable with my own sexuality and as a result I have never taken offense and even been somewhat flattered by it as well.
The same concept (and I do not mean to infer nor imply this would be your stance houstonderek) would have been voiced when African-Americans civil rights were being fought for and won; Where is the concession to the feelings of white men? Oh right, they aren't worth considering, they just need to get over it. In the long run, it turns out that was just the case; get over it and move forward.
Equality is equality. People just need to learn to accept people for who they are and just get over the differences. Because, bottom line, everyone is different. If THAT happens great things could as well.
think a big part of things would be an amendment saying that a church does not have to accept a gay wedding if the church itself disagrees with homosexuality.
Nobody is asking that the state require churches to accept gay weddings, perform them, host them, or do anything else of the sort any more than we are demanding that straights be divorced and then conscripted into same-sex marriages against their will. We're only asking for the same access to civil marriage that different-sex couples can partake of.
Which is why stuff like that gathering storm ad is so incredibly idiotic and ripe for parody. The only people who are harmed by gay marriage are those who think it's their right to force their religious rules on the rest of us.