Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Enforcement- stopped by Judge

Questions that come to my mind.
1. Does one Federal Court Judge have the power to rule worldwide?
2. Will this affect enlistment levels?
3. Will this issue cause a large number of lifers to retire?
4. Will this cause more attacks in the field between fellow servicemen and women?
5. How many times will I be called a homophobe just for posting this, even though I am not expressing my opinions?

Sure am glad I don't have to read the usual attacks from our resident trolls, but you do!!! :woo hoo:

---

Politics
Federal Judge Orders Halt to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Enforcement

Published October 12, 2010

| Associated Press

RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling issued Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-halt-dont-ask-dont-tell-enforcement/

First of all, nothing the military does stops on a dime...so stopping discharges based on someone violating DADT immediately, just isn't going to happen.

Secondly, unfortunately, there are bigots and prejudiced people in the military...same as in all walks of life. There could be major problems with morale and readiness if one person knows their bunk-mate or patrol partner or co-pilot is homosexual. And, yes, it could cause a lot of animosity between military members. Even the perception that a peer is homosexual causes animosity and outright hostility between military members.

When I was active duty, I heard and saw first-hand the prejudices between everyone...even though racism is not supposed to be allowed, nor is sexism, nor is any kind of bigotry or favortism...but it happened, and I'm sure it still does. Doesn't make it right.

I believe that if a homosexual comports themselves in a manner befitting the military and morale and readiness are not compromised, they should be allowed to serve. And I'm sure there were some homosexual people in units and offices I worked in while active duty. But then, again, some of the straight people I was stationed with in the military flaunted their sexuality almost to the point of harrassment and extreme discomfort for some people...and I didn't/don't agree with that either.

I'm not a homophobe, but I am a realist and I have spent time, like 20 years, in and around the military, so I know this issue is not as cut and dry as it seems.

As for affecting enlistment levels and/or causing a mass exodous of lifers...from everything I've read, most of the services are in the midst of a draw-down and in some cases are moving to involuntary RIFs, so no, I don't believe there will be a huge loss for any of the services.

It will be interesting to see how much effort AG Holder puts into appealing this case.

I can answer that one 109. None. Right now Obama has the benefits of having his base pleased that the policy will end, even if he had nothing to do with it, and the ability to say to his detractors that the courts made the decision, not his administration. A win-win scenario for any politician hoping to be reelected and one that he sorely needs as his number continue to slide to the point where the party might not have a problem with someone challenging him for the Democrat nomination in 2012.