Judge orders injuction against DADT

| October 12, 2010 | 75 Comments

Yeah, you’re going to hear a lot about this story during the next few days. If I didn’t know better, the slaves were freed today. And the hyperbole is flying;

[U.S. District Judge Virginia] Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week nonjury trial in federal court in Riverside. She said the Log Cabin Republicans “established at trial that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights.”

Which fundamental right is that Judge Phillips, the Clinton appointee? The right to put whatever you want in whoever you want? In which article can I find that?

She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment.

I’m no lawyer, but that seems specious on it’s face. I guess I’ll wait for our legal staff to review the decision in it’s entirety.

I can just hear the thunder of ballet-slippered feet as the gay community stampedes to line up at the recruiting stations. Can’t you? All of our retention problems have been solved.

Category: Military issues

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (75)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jacobite says:

    I agree Mike, and I think I pointed out in one of my posts that there would have to be a pretty strong burden of proof that the person involved with the offending partner was aware that they were intruding on another relationship. I also believe there has to be a solid case made that the affair was indeed a primary reason for the eventual dissolution, or at least that it contributed significantly to it.

    All that being said, I really do believe that the state needs to get out of the ‘marriage business’. I think it would solve a whole wealth of problems.

  2. ROS says:

    “Marriage may be a vow between two people, but until laws governing it are changed, it is also a legal contract. Breaking that vow is also breaking that legal contract.”

    Bingo. That third party never entered into the marriage contract.

    (I love it when the Italian proves my point. :D )

    (And thank you, PintoNag. I drown in science on a daily basis. Some of it is bound to stick in my brain. :) )

  3. All that being said, I really do believe that the state needs to get out of the ‘marriage business’. I think it would solve a whole wealth of problems.
    ==========

    I dunno. I think the government being in the “marriage business” is a net positive for our society, basically giving incentives for a stable family.

    What I do think causes a wealth of problems is the government being in the ‘subsidizing single motherhood’ business. That has made it such that women feel they now don’t need fathers around to raise children, in addition to also making men feel they don’t need to stick around to raise children, since the government will take care of single mom and baby/children. I think this — along with many other factors in our deteriorating society — has led to a culture of promiscuous sex and single parenthood (ie women feel they can have sex as they please and if they get pregnant, no problem, since they can either just get an abortion or get the government handouts for single mothers). In addition to pregnancies and single parenthood, more promiscuous sex leads to the spread of more STDs.

    So while I’m not in favor of the government legislating morality with regards to sex, there was a societal benefit to when our culture promoted the ideal of waiting to have sex until marriage. Less spread of STDs, less children born out of wedlock and more children raised in stable families, etc. So I don’t believe that deemphasizing the importance of marriage is a way to solve our current problems. I don’t think how the government treats marriage is the problem so much as how our culture treats sex and marriage that is the cause of the problems.

  4. Jacobite says:

    #52, 3rd parties do indeed get burned for inserting themselves unasked into contracts, lol.

    And PS, no italians anywhere in site. ;)

    Mike, a question. Do you believe gay marriages should be recognized?

  5. “Mike, a question. Do you believe gay marriages should be recognized?”
    ==========

    No, because that would involve redefining what is marriage.

    I used to be in favor of opening up civil unions for homosexuals, but because of their BS with harassing people regarding their votes on Prop 8 in Cahleefornyah and the GLBT movement calling anyone who disagrees with their agenda to be a “hater” and a “homophobe” (including their BS movement to stop people from saying “that’s so gay”, with the latest example of calling Vince Vaughn’s joke “hate speech” in his movie where he calls Priuses “gay”), I am now against their entire agenda out of spite.

    Spite aside, I’d probably agree with civil unions. However, I am 100% against redefining marriage.

    The problem is, my spite comes back when the GLBT movement won’t accept civil unions and insists on redefining marriage. At this point, my attitude is to hell with them. They went from just wanting tolerance to now telling us that if we don’t 100% accept them and their agenda, we are “haters” and “homophobes” and jokes about “that’s so gay” is “hate speech”. If that’s how it’s going to be, then they’ve lost my support for anything they want.

  6. ROS says:

    “#54 Jacobite Says:
    October 18th, 2010 at 10:42 am
    #52, 3rd parties do indeed get burned for inserting themselves unasked into contracts, lol.

    And PS, no italians anywhere in site.”

    There is in my head since I pronounce your nom de plume “jay-co-bee-tay”.

  7. Jacobite says:

    LOL, ROS. :)

    Mike, ok, you don’t want marriage re-defined, I’m with you, and there’s a reason.
    Where does the accepted definition of marriage come from?

  8. “Where does the accepted definition of marriage come from?”
    ==========

    I think I know where you’re going with this…

    Well, I’m sure the definition of marriage existed long before any organized religion, but since you worded your question “the accepted definition of marriage”, I’m guessing that it came from religion?

  9. ROS says:

    I’m curious about one thing in particular:

    We profess to want determinate separation of church and state, yet we want them to make and enforce laws concerning what is (for most) a holy union. Why is that?

    To me (and my opinion matters less than most), a marriage is not defined by a marriage license, per se. That’s only a document which may be utilized to obtain societal benefits, i.e. insurance and the like.

    Where is the line drawn?

  10. Jacobite says:

    Yes, you already see where I’m heading with it. I think it’s a valid observation as well, since it is overwhelmingly ‘Judaeo Christian’ religious institutions which want to protect the one woman one man definition based on their moral philosophies. Fair enough. And since that’s the case, I find it logical that religious institutions should be the sole authority involved in the promotion and maintenance of that institution. It then follows that the State should not be dabbling in something that is essentially a religious construct. If our ‘culture’ is not sufficient to the task of creating and maintaining equitable relationships among people of what ever gender, I certainly don’t believe our Gov’t should be filling the role either. That way lies a return to one of our complaints against Ol’ England.

    Circumventing the concept of keeping the state out of religion by saying ‘the government being in the “marriage business” is a net positive for our society, basically giving incentives for a stable family.’ , is as wrong as supporting any other concept that circumvents our founding principles just because it’s (supposedly) for the greater good..

    And yes, certainly some definition of marriage existed before organized religion, some in a form that no civilized human today would care to re-visit.

    At least IMHO. :)

  11. Jacobite says:

    ROS,
    I personally believe ‘marriage’, or ‘holy matrimony’ should be the sole jurisdiction of religious institutions. And if you want ‘out’ of a marriage, you should be subject to what ever binding agreements you’ve entered into based on the beliefs of your order, so long as it doesn’t infringe on your assumed natural rights as a citizen of this country.

    I further believe that ‘domestic partnerships’ should be the default term for any one else wanting to join their lives for personal, political, or ‘societal’ benefit. Entering into a domestic partnership should be difficult, with a lengthy and legally binding exit strategy already agreed upon before signing on the dotted line.
    Unless you are a religious person, the whole idea of a formal marriage is nothing but a façade any way, the reason being quite simply what has been pounded into us for years by the whole debate, that marriage is a religious institution describing the commitment of one man and one woman.

  12. ROS says:

    That’s just semantics- ‘marriage’, ‘domestic partnerships’, what have you. One can definitely be the other.

  13. Yep, I knew that’s where you were going with it. :)

    I disagree, but I have a question, Jacobite. I didn’t hear this “get the government out of the ‘marriage business’” stuff until after the GLBT movement started pushing to redefine marriage.

    Basically, among those who disagree with redefining marriage, there seem to be two sides:

    (1) those who don’t want marriage redefined on a whim, because marriage is what it is — a one man-one woman union and
    (2) those who say ‘I’m against redefining it, but since we’re on the subject of government sponsored marriage, I say get rid of government sponsored marriage altogether’.

    I guess my question is do you think there would be this movement to eliminate government sponsored marriage altogether without the GLBT movement to redefine marriage?

    Personally, I don’t see the problem with the government promoting marriage. It is in the best interest of a society to have stable families. The government benefits handed out for married couples basically gives further incentive to people — other than the main incentive that it just makes common sense to raise kids within a stable family — to have stable families.

    What ruins this is the government getting into the business of giving benefits, and thus incentive, to single motherhood. The government basically rewards irresponsible behavior.

  14. ROS says:

    What is it with the anti-single moms stuff?

  15. Jacobite says:

    I assume that by calling it semantics you mean a distinction without a difference.

    I beg to differ.

    Marriage is exactly what its proponents call it, a binding vow before, and to, God to live for each other in the fashion He has instructed.

    A domestic partnership is a legal agreement whereby you are entering into what is essentially a beneficial business arrangement. God need not be present.

    Maybe I’ve had too much pasta and its dulling my senses ( :p ), but I fail to see how claiming it’s semantics would negate my previous argument anyway. Semantics is simply the study of language, meanings and contexts. What I engaged in is definitely semantics, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

  16. “What is it with the anti-single moms stuff?”
    ==========

    I’m not “anti-single moms”, I’m against promoting and subsidizing single-parenthood. When you promote and subsidize something, you increase the likelihood of it, right? Well, I think most people can agree that single motherhood is not the ideal situation. The ideal is a stable family with a mother and father. So we should be promoting that.

    Now, are there plenty of single parents who do a great job raising their kids? Of course. And they should be commended for their efforts. But we should not be promoting those situations as ideal. And that’s what the government basically does with all the government handouts that go to single moms.

    There is a reason that fathers are demonized in today’s society. Because the new “father” is now government. The message is being sent that women don’t need men around to be fathers, because they can just get handouts from the government to take care of them.

    I don’t know the history of those handouts, but I’m guessing someone decided to write a law for it based on there being a problem with out-of-wedlock babies and single-motherhood. Well, the solution to that is not to subsidize it with handouts, because that just eases the burden and makes it easier for others to do the same thing.

    It’s just like extending unemployment handouts to 99 weeks. Instead of just the 26 weeks and then creating an economy that fosters job growth such that companies are hiring and the unemployed get jobs again, the government is subsidizing unemployment and making it easier for people to stay unemployed and live off the handouts.

  17. Jacobite says:

    Mike,

    I know you’re not trying to, or least I hope you’re not trying to, claim that all single moms are irresponsible. Many aren’t. Mine wasn’t, and myself and my siblings were far better off growing up in that single parent household then we ever would have been under the extremely abusive but outwardly ‘upstanding and Christian’ man she was married to.

    I agree with you on this “What ruins this is the government getting into the business of giving benefits.” Once again, Government taints everything it touches, and the extent of it’s damage seems directly related to the size of the issue it’s ‘handling’.

    And the argument still stands, we shouldn’t be promoting things just because it’s in the county’s best interest. Imagine if you will……………

    “Personally, I don’t see the problem with the government promoting marriage Catholicism. It is in the best interest of a society to have stable families. The government benefits handed out for married Catholic couples basically gives further incentive to people — other than the main incentive that it just makes common sense to raise kids within a stable family — to have stable families.”

    I get what your saying Mike, but I believe it’s the wrong way to go about things.

  18. ROS says:

    Christ, I hate agreeing with the Italian.

    I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why society views single moms as hapless creatures who are usually loose and questionable ethically, while single fathers are lauded as heroes who stepped up to the plate “like a man”.

    I, too, believe my kids are better off raised in a household without their father (singular), even if they are being raised by a highly opinionated single mother with hearing loss and a crooked nose because of him.

    That said, I don’t think taking things away from children is the answer to that problem. Perhaps enhancing requirements or adding limits so that aid isn’t an incentive, but a last resort for single parents of both sexes?

  19. I know you’re not trying to, or least I hope you’re not trying to, claim that all single moms are irresponsible. Many aren’t. Mine wasn’t, and myself and my siblings were far better off growing up in that single parent household then we ever would have been under the extremely abusive but outwardly ‘upstanding and Christian’ man she was married to.
    ==========

    No, I absolutely was not trying to claim that. I’m referring to the mostly young women who choose to have sex before they are ready to have children and then are left with single-motherhood, because the guy they chose to sleep with abandoned them. Yeah, the guy is a d0cheb@g for leaving her high and dry, but she would not be in that situation were it not for her irresponsible decision to have sex with him in the first place. With the government handouts for single mothers now, though, women don’t have to be as concerned with a guy doing that anymore, since they can be ‘taken care of’ by Daddy government. Also, this allows any d0ucheb@g guys to feel less bad about leaving the single mom, because Daddy government is there for them.

    Now, the situation you describe is completely different. I’m not talking about a family that dissolves due to abuse or whatnot. But also, while of course a family is better off without an abusive parent, that same family would be better off with two good parents. In other words, if ranking the ideal situations:

    (1) Two good parents – mother and father
    (2) One good parent (mother or father)
    (3) One good parent, one abusive
    (4) Two abusive parents

    Obviously, if faced with situation (3), you’d rather have situation (2). My point is that situation (1) is always the ideal and should always be held up as the ideal.

    I still remember when growing up, the neighbor kids from across the street were Arab and their mother came with them to our area in Chicago to escape their abusive father. She did a great job with them, as best she could under the circumstances — worked hard, opened her own business, put them through Catholic grammar school and high school. But even with all that, they still missed having a father. My dad was good at acting like the good all American father when in public, but was a complete @ssh0le otherwise. But, these neighbor kids didn’t see him at his worst, only at his fake public persona. One day they said “man, you guys (brothers and I) are lucky to have a dad”. Immediately, all 3 of us scoffed and laughed that off. “You wouldn’t be saying that if you knew him like we do”. But they scoffed at that and insisted, they’d rather have him than no dad at all. So it’s really about perspective. But they were unknowingly choosing situation (3) over situation (2), because they thought my brothers and I were in situation (1).

    A HUGE problem in the Black community is their poverty, much of which is caused by single-motherhood. Which then leads to many young men growing up without fathers and not having a good male role model, and so they then go out and repeat the mistakes of their absent father, becoming absent fathers or young fathers themselves. This then hurts their chances at succeeding in life as they are either fathers at young ages or paying alimony and child support from young ages.

    I forgot which, I think, Black leader said it, but he said the simple way to success as a Black man was to (1) graduate High School (great first step to getting a job) and (2) wait until marriage to have kids (so you don’t start out life with the financial responsibility of children before even starting adulthood).

  20. ROS says:

    And the definition of marriage for those who have carbo-loaded and are in a noodle fog this afternoon:

    mar·riage? ?/?mær?d?/ Show Spelled
    [mar-ij] Show IPA

    –noun
    1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
    b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

    My comment about semantics meant only that giving it different names doesn’t change it anywhere but in your own mind.

    Would giving it different labels solve the matter at hand?

  21. “That said, I don’t think taking things away from children is the answer to that problem.”
    ==========

    And that’s the problem right there. You framed it as “taking things away from children”. And the nanny-state trap works to a tee.

    We’re not “taking things away from children”, we’re taking money away from taxpayers and giving it to single parents. The money is not theirs. The money belongs to the taxpayer. By framing it as “taking things away from the children”, you make it sound like the children were entitled to get this money. That from the time a child is born of a single parent, they have money coming to them from Joe Taxpayer.

    That is a huge problem right there. Entitlement.

    “Perhaps enhancing requirements or adding limits so that aid isn’t an incentive, but a last resort for single parents of both sexes?”

    Ideally, this would be nice, but since when are requirements ever enforced? Just look at the S-CHIP program. Good in intent, but massively abused. (ie, the latest idea by the Democrats back in 2007-2008 was to consider anyone up to 26 years of age to be a “child” covered by S-CHIP, which is absolutely ridiculous).

    One requirement might be that a mother getting handouts would have to either have (1) lost the father due to death or (2) divorced due to abuse? Again, though, it would come down to enforcing these limits/restrictions.

    Honestly, I don’t know the answer. I just know that if you take government out of the “marriage industry”, you better take government out of the welfare industry too. Because if there are no longer incentives for marriage/civil unions, then there certainly better not be incentives for people just having babies so they can get government handouts.

    That said, if you’re suggesting the government get out of the “marriage business”, shouldn’t it also get out of the civil union business as well? Considering civil unions grant the same benefits as marriage, what’s the difference then? So are you in favor of abolishing “government marriage” as well as civil unions and having no government benefits for a domestic union of any kind?

  22. I, too, believe my kids are better off raised in a household without their father (singular), even if they are being raised by a highly opinionated single mother with hearing loss and a crooked nose because of him.
    ==========

    Of course. But I expect you would believe your kids would be better off raised in a household with a mother who was a good mother and a father who was a good father, as opposed to being raised by a single mother, correct?

    That’s my point. It’s not to dump on single-parenthood, it’s to promote the ideal. Is single-motherhood or single-fatherhood better than having one parent be abusive? Well, of course! But that doesn’t mean it’s ideal or the ideal.

    Is having RINOs in office better than having radical Marxists in office? Of course, but that doesn’t mean we hold up socialist-lite governing as the ideal, just because it’s better than full blown Socialist/Communist government.

  23. ROS says:

    Ultimately, government programs are put in place in order to ensure that children do not go without due to a parent’s lack of provision. So, it is taking away from children, or rather withholding.

    I agree wholly that it’s entirely too easy to obtain benefits, without a doubt. I busted my ass to put myself through college and earn 2 degrees while raising my kids without ever receiving any assistance, yet my 3-year-old SUV is worth half of what the welfare crowd drives.

    Which brings us to an entirely different issue, but which does illustrate your point: The predominance of obtaining benefits on the basis of single parenthood while both parents live together, they just aren’t married.

    And that is why I believe benefits should be only temporary and have many more stipulations, namely drug testing.

  24. Jacobite says:

    #70
    aHHHH, but it’s not MY construct, and the difference isn’t only in my mind, it’s the construct of the organizations who have decided to elect themselves as the expert witnesses for their own point of view, and our society has largely accepted those defined roles and their definitions. Perceptions of difference become reality.

    #71
    My personal opinion is that no one should really be entitled to anything from the National Government that they didn’t first earn in some sort of service to the country.
    I believe in subsistence level welfare from the National Gov’t, and local control and funding of more extensive ‘help’. I also support Ben Franklin’s theory that poverty should be uncomfortable.

    So it follows, no, I don’t support hand outs or incentives just because you’re married. A hand out is a hand out is a hand out.

  25. ROS says:

    But the definition I just provided you said only a social contract, with OR without religious connotations. Would the domestic partnerships of which you speak not also fall under that umbrella?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *