Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
going public

Gay Soldiers Need This Immunity Law to Even Tell Congress About DADT Law

danchoitape

It’s sort of hard to hear from gay military servicemembers when, uh, testifying before Congress would be a gross violation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. So before we can even repeal the discriminatory measure, Congress is trying to pass another law — just to make it okay for these soldiers to tell lawmakers how terrible DADT is. It’s called the Honest and Open Testimony Act, and it was introduced today by Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings with 27 co-sponsors. As the Palm Center notes, “Because the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy requires the discharge of service members who acknowledge that they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, the bill would serve as the first relaxation of the military ban in sixteen years.”

Heh.

Can you imagine legislators having to pass a law so, say, Wall Street bankers could openly identify as Wall Street bankers to they could testify before Congress and plead for their help?

Immunity!

By:           editor editor
On:           Dec 2, 2009
Tagged: , ,
  • 7 Comments
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      “Can you imagine legislators having to pass a law so, say, Wall Street bankers could openly identify as Wall Street bankers to they could testify before Congress and plead for their help?”

      That’s a weak analogy. For one thing, Wall Street is not a function of the government. It is part of the private sector. The military is a function of the government, authorized by the Constitution.

      Dec 2, 2009 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      What a sick sad country we live in.

      Dec 2, 2009 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      I note the initials of name of the act with irony.

      Honest and Open Testimony.

      Dec 3, 2009 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tavdy79
      tavdy79

      It’s just occurred to me that DADT might actually be invalid under the First Amendment. It does, after all, require the federal & state governments to protect citizens’ right to free speech, and DADT denies LG servicement and women that right on pain of losing their job.

      Dec 3, 2009 at 7:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • what
      what

      The First Amendment is not absolute. This has been ruled over and over again. I could give a thousand examples from the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to someone working for the CIA speaking about state secrets. On top of this, the military has been excluded from much of the Constitution(al rights) for a very long time.

      Dec 3, 2009 at 11:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      Wow. The HOT Act. Interesting.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      @tavdy79: The difference is that when you join the military, you enter into a contractually binding relationship in which you knowingly sacrifice some of your rights for the greater good of the country.

      This is why soldiers can’t sue their commanding officers for knowingly ordering them into positions where they could be injured or killed. If a civilian did that, it would be negligent homicide. In the military, it is just status quo.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.