I don't understand how repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell moves the country AHEAD, rather than moves the country backward.

If the issue was not good, and DADT was an attempt to ensure parity, how is repealing it going to help? Don't we just go back to the unacceptable situation that inspired DADT?

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

Its good because the discriminatory law is repealed and replaced with appropriate administrative law as defined by the repeal.

__________________
How can actions that are wrong lead to a greater good? - Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek)

But can't the military just go back to discriminating based on sexual orientation?

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

No. Its a directive to repeal and amend to avoid discrimination. The repeal includes language on how the new administrative policy should look. The repeal serves as "negative law" if you will. "You can no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation." Is the clear order from the congress and in concert with other administrative law prohibits explicitly discrimination.

__________________
How can actions that are wrong lead to a greater good? - Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek)

Now they can ask about sexual orientation and take measures to hide their discrimination.

So...

Recruiter: "Have you ever had sexual feelings toward someone of the same sex?"

Recruit: "Well...when I was in junior high I would look at the other boys to see if I measured up... Does that count?"

Recruiter: "Uh...okay...thank you for applying, currently there are no openings for the area that you are interested in."

Recruit: "I'd be willing to do anything, I just want to serve. Put me in the line of fire--I'll be fodder."

Recruiter: "That's why you are not qualified. It's for your own good."

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

That's what I'm thinking. It will be very hard to prove that anyone was discriminating based on what was said in an interview, and if it doesn't happen in an interview--how hard would it be to find ONE single screw-up to justify kicking a fellah out?


Seems to me a homosexual soldier who really WANTS to serve is "screwed" (so to speak) since he WILL be asked, and then he has to be a good soldier AND watch his ass all the time (literally) to avoid any whiff of a reason to be discharged.

I don't think that sounds like "progress."

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

Why would recruiters ask such a question? Since it will be perfectly legal for homosexuals to serve in the military, under what policy would they be able to ask about sexual orientation?

My son just signed with the Marines. He was directly asked if he was gay at MEPS. Before he was allowed to sign the contract he had to affirm that he has never, nor ever would while in the military, engage in homosexual activity.

Homosexuality is relevant to how recruits relate. Why do you think it wouldnt be relevant?

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

So then the recruiters violated the existing DADT policy. How will repealling Title 10, Section 654 change that?

He wouldn't have to sign anything after Title 10, Section 654 is removed from law.

The military has studied the issue and their findings suggest it isn't relevant to how troops relate.