Good, Clinton should have never signed it into law in the first place.

Sep 10, 2010 -- 12:16PM, Sirronrex wrote:

A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday, Sept 9, 2010, declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of gay and lesbians.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...

Quite true. However, being a former "lifer-dog Military", I'd like to point out a few things. Background: I was in the Military in 1980 before DADT and just got out three weeks ago.

1. The difference, under DADT there were (believe it or not) "protections". You could NOT get discharged for walking into an "Alternative Life style" bar, and your accuser had to have "proof". Basically, "what you did off base, with non-service members, was off-limits".

2.Unfortunate, but true, as a Service Member it is understood that you give up certain basic rights. Such as, can you protest? Yes, but not in uniform. Can you date? Yes, but not someone in your own unit or chain of command. 

While my life-partner couldn't attend base functions, who said he wanted too?

Peace,

Sep 10, 2010 -- 12:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Good, Clinton should have never signed it into law in the first place.

You can attempt to blame Bill Clinton all you want.

Sep 10, 2010 -- 2:03PM, Sirronrex wrote:

Sep 10, 2010 -- 12:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Good, Clinton should have never signed it into law in the first place.

You can attempt to blame Bill Clinton all you want.

No matter who was behind it's creation, Clinton is responsible for making it law. To deny that is ignoring the facts.

Even Clinton has said he shouldn't have signed it.

I should add that I don't now, nor have I ever supported DADT. It's a stupid rule.

Sep 10, 2010 -- 2:30PM, Guessses wrote:

"Homosexual Conduct is grounds for dismissal from the Armed Forces.Sexual orientation is a personal and private matter and is not a bar to service, unless there is homosexual conduct.The Army defines homosexual conduct in terms of Statement, Act, and Marriage (SAM).It is not Army policy to pry into the personal lives of its soldiers or to seek out homosexuals. The mere suspicion that someone is homosexual is not sufficient reason to discharge a soldier. The soldier needs to do or saysomething that constitutes a homosexual act. Saying you are a homosexual in order to evade your military obligationis also illegal. You should not engage in any "witch hunts"to expose homosexuals, or you may be the one who gets introuble instead of those whom you suspect. Have respectfor all soldiers and their right to privacy."

usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/armyiet...

Forgive me for my ignorance, but merely stating "I'm gay" constituted an homosexual conduct?