Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
At least on cocks. Yep, the great one asked a federal appeals court to lift the ruling that allowed faggots to run around the battlefield wearing dresses and slapping each other with their dicks.

The crock of Barak has no shame. Everything he says is a lie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorporalChaos:
Silly question
Why does being gay matter?
Why can't you do both, be gay and serve in the military?
Last time I checked, gay men are just as capable of shooting someone in the face as anyone else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorporalChaos:
Can you give me a military reason why gay men aren't allowed to serve?
The above are not military reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorporalChaos:
Can you give me a military reason why gay men aren't allowed to serve?
The above are not military reasons.

---

Quote:

---

I've been wondering about this as well. The *logical* reason I could see for appealing the ruling would be that the administration WANTS this pushed all the way to the Supreme Court, because they feel that their case is strong enough that the SCOTUS will rule DADT unconstitutional once and for all. There's no appeal of a SCOTUS ruling, after all. But an injunction by an appellate court might be ripe for someone to pick up and try to re-litigate at some future date.

It's a risky proposition, if that's the logic behind this idea of appealing. If the SCOTUS throws out DADT for good, lots of people will be happy; but what if this Supreme Court UPHOLDS such a policy?

---

Quote:

---

I'm playing a guessing game, trying to imagine why the President would appeal a ruling that effectively gives him what he says he wants. Having an injunction - even if it's allowed to become a "permanent" one - just *feels* incomplete; it feels like a temporary fix, one that could be undone with the stroke of a pen or the filing of a lawsuit.

I still have the feeling that the President WANTS to force this issue before the Supremes for what he hopes will be the FINAL nail in its coffin. It's a gamble, of course, in that this is a fairly conservative SCOTUS, and he might lose.

But as mentioned, he may also mount a half-hearted defense. The President *MUST* be seen to support the law, and to vigorously advocate for the rule of law, so in a sense he has to appeal this ruling. And if it goes all the way to the SCOTUS, he has to be seen to be defending it so that it gets a "fair trial". But a good solicitor can put on a nice show trial while simultaneously "taking a dive", so to speak.

That's kind of where my head's at with this issue at this point. Like I said, I'm trying to make sense of it, despite it not making a helluva lot of sense...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorporalChaos:
Wasn't the CinC the one who said gays should serve in the first place.
By that I mean the president. But seriously, any other military reasons, or just that one?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorporalChaos:
Can you give me a military reason why gay men aren't allowed to serve?
The above are not military reasons.

---

They shower nekkid together. Being gay would be like a guy showering w/ the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.

Oh, sure.... you might be able to keep it down for a while, but over time... you'd just HAVE to hit some of that sweet tail !

---