Quote:
Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909
I can agree with you on the points you bring up, and I know at least where you are coming from. I don't see where people get the idea that we're above the law when that couldn't be further from the truth, how many civilians here would be put on restriction, given half a months pay x2, and reduced in rank/paygrade AFTER dealing with all the civilian penalities for recieving a DUI? If anything in the military its almost as if you get it twice as bad, so before people go spouting off about how "Military thinks they're above the law" you might want to do some research first.
|
I know first hand how some military is above the law. Of course, for the mere mortals such as ourselves, we will never be above the law. I know personally of a DUI case, in which someone in enlisted service (at a very secret/protected base/area) crashed not 1, but 2, government hummers (while intoxicated). His only punishment was having to escort my team around. However, I do realize that this is not the norm by any means. But all it takes is one public instance of someone being able to be "above the law" for the general population to view it as the norm and not the exception.
Also, as a lawyer, if you get a DUI, I do believe you can have your license revoked. Also, we (well, in theory at least...) hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard. There is a case where a NJ lawyer had a major family crisis (wife needed cancer treatment, and a child with major medical bills) so he borrowed a clients fund which were held in escrow. The client never knew about it and the money was repaid shortly after. During a random audit this came out, and this attorney was barred from practicing (I think ever again). So you can see that having more "rules" is not just for the military, but a lot of professions. And none of it is unconstitutional (at least that I have found so far).
Quote:
Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909
Nobody is saying that openly gay people are going to get blanket parties or anything like that(too much "Full Metal Jacket" for you, hazing will get you into deep shit nowadays anyways) But I can honestly say it will further complicate an already complicated system. Many more of the articles of the UCMJ can become questionable I.E. the article about sodomy, i dunno the number off the top of my head, but it would be contradictory in itself to keep that article if openly gays are in fact allowed to serve. Don't have much time to type right now will get more into this later. I'm curious to hear both sides points of view.
|
How will having openly gay members complicate anything? I am not in the military myself, but have a lot of family and friends (some that may/may not be gay) and from my conversations with them (and their military friends) they all seem to think of it as archaic and affecting national security negatively when we lose very talented/important serviceman because of DADT.
Sodomy? you are truly worried that sodomy may become an issue? That seems to be ridiculous (and should be taken out, it is a waste of words/paper to have that in there if that is true). It is also contradictory to anyone who has anal sex in a heterosexual relationship, I do not see how this argument makes any sense at all to tell you the truth.
If anyone can point a truly real reason for DADT to be around, please let me know. I have yet to hear one legit/legal/reasonable explanation. However, I do understand why you would be worried about the way they are going about it, as that is just a lack of knowledge on how the legal system (and government) functions in that regard. Trust me, no one really knows the right answer to all of that.