More reality about DADT.
This is the hard, cold truth of the situation.
There is no real "protection" observed for gay service members.


Last week, Little Cicero defended our government's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gay people serving in the military by arguing variously that it served to protect LGBT servicemembers from homophobes and that First Amendment speech protections are not severely compromised by the rule, as the only possible reason for a person to "announce" that they are a homosexual would be to proposition a fellow soldier.

Earlier he had also asked for evidence that people are being fired simply for being gay.

Well, conveniently the Army has just provided us with another classic example.

In January of this year, the army discharged Arabic specialist Bleu Copas after his supervisors had received a series of anonymous emails outing him as a homosexual.

Mr. Copas did not violate the government policy, which does not ban gay people from military service, it only requires them not to disclose their orientation and prohibits other people from asking about it. He was aware of the policy going in, and chose to obey it, in order to serve his country.

Rather, his supervisors broke the rules by asking him about his orientation. Even then he did not answer their questions, in keeping with the policy. Instead, they launched an "eight month investigation" into his private life.
The Last Debate: Army Protects Decorated Soldier By Firing Him

So I see that you obviously aren't going to approach any discussion without being snide and rude from the onset. Noted. And I will keep a sharp watch on it from here and gig you for it each and every time.

How is that for relevant, sparky?

Research Note Assessing "Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues," a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

....

The CRS's current denial of the practice of retaining known gays during wartime is difficult to reconcile with the 1993 Congressional testimony of the report's principal author, which acknowledges this practice. It states, in part: "The situation that arises during a time of deployment place[s] homosexuals in a no-win situation. They are allowed or ordered to serve at the risk of their own lives with the probability of forced discharge when hostilities end if their sexuality becomes an issue. By deploying suspected homosexuals with their units, the services bring into question their own argument that the presence of homosexuals seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission."[7]

....

The CRS report mischaracterizes what "don't ask, don't tell" punishes so as to make the policy seem more tolerant of homosexual identity. The report claims that "don't ask, don't tell" in its statutory form is "based on conduct," while making "no mention of orientation.'" It says that individuals who "choose" to make their sexual identity public will be discharged.[8] The implication is that gay people who opt to conceal their sexual orientation can continue to serve so long as they do not engage in misconduct.

In truth, the current regulations are not based solely on conduct, but also punish people for having a gay or lesbian identity, even if they remain celibate. Those whose homosexual orientation becomes known, i.e. whether or not they choose to reveal it, must be discharged from the military, even if they do not engage in misconduct. Not only are service members discharged simply for saying they are gay, even if such statements are not accompanied by evidence of same-sex sexual conduct, but they are also discharged if, while not choosing to come out, they are outed by other people or by the surfacing of evidence such as romantic photos, letters, etc.[9]

Contrary to the assertion of the CRS report, the law makes clear that it targets people who have a gay or lesbian identity, not just those who engage in homosexual conduct. It stipulates that a service member will be discharged if he or she engages in same-sex sexual conduct unless "such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior" and it is "unlikely to recur," i.e. the person is straight.[10] Thus heterosexual people are allowed to engage in same-sex sexual conduct on a one-time basis, while gay people are not only punished for any same-sex sexual conduct, but are banned from service simply for being gay, whether or not they engage in sexual conduct.

By insisting that "don't ask, don't tell" targets conduct, the authors of the CRS report imply that anyone who is fired under the policy has willingly chosen to violate the rules. In reality, many service members are fired because of their sexual identity, even when they have done nothing wrong.
Research Note Assessing "Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues" | Michael D. Palm Center

The truth is clear.
I don't know how it can be made any more plain.

"Relevant"?
Completely non-topical to this thread.
If you seriously want to discuss this further, maybe we should create a separate thread in the "Off Topic" section so as to allow people who want to discuss this issue to continue.

The numerous other posts of mine on this thread prove your claim false.
Quit trying to turn this into a byatch-fest and discuss the DADT topic if you are capable. You spend too much energy fixating on slights that you yourself also make, turning the entire thread into a prolonged, non-topical discussion on that.

Most of my posts on this thread (and comments in the posts) are not "snide" or "rude". I am discussing the topic.
On the flip side, I can point to a variety of YOUR comments which are obviously "snide and rude".

"Watch" what you want.
I am going to discuss the topic.
Are you?

All I can say on this matter is that the Uniform Code of Military Justice says otherwise and that really is the final authority. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires intensive investigation upon report of homosexual activity and it requires that the activity be actively participated in, not just an identity as an orientation:

Uniform Code of Military Conduct

I suggest a good hard look at part (b) of the statute which actually lays down the guidelines for separation offenses. Also, if you look at MISC(2) of the statute and look at the implementation, you'll see that there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent unlawful discharge (unlawful being under the UCMJ, which is the applicable law, not the constitution).

As interesting and emotionally appealing as your cut and paste arguments from various advocacy groups were, they are irrelevant to the issue because the military operates under a completely different set of rules. Further, there is no "right" to serve in the military AND service is a strictly voluntary arrangement and subject to agreement by both parties. You may claim that some great injustice has been done here, but it is just emotional caterwauling with no basis in fact.

The fact is, the military operates under a different standard of conduct and it plays by completely different rules.

Another interesting thread closed because foundit couldn't behave himself. I told you guys that I am not going to tolerate and I won't. Feel free to make a second attempt by opening another thread. If you have any issues with this action, take it up in a PM to cnredd.

End of discussion.