Because it’s U.S. Navy policy, and not law, that currently prohibits any female sailors from serving on submarines.
There was a law — Title 10, Section 6015 — that Congress repealed in 1994, but the Pentagon maintained the practice. The policy was kept based on a “prohibitive cost basis (and no other reason of record),”, relays the Alliance for National Defense. But all that’s about to change with Defense Sec. Robert Gates writing Congress a letter Friday explaining the Navy is lifting the ban; Congress has 30 days to weigh in (such as requiring testimony before permitting the policy be repealed). AP: “[C]adets who graduate from the Naval Academy this year could be among the first Navy women to take submarine posts.” In 2005, AND argued “former ballistic missile vessels are being converted to cruise missile vessels. The ships are large enough to create appropriately private berthing for female and male crew members and the renovations can be done while converting the ship’s configuration.”
And down periscope we go.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
…..because U.S submarines are Full of Semen!
Cam
That is why, contrary to what Barney Frank would try to tell you, that DADT was so horrible, everything before it was just military policy, policy that can be changed with a snap of the head of the military branch’s fingers….Frank actually wrote a discriminitory law against his own kind and it passed. So now, instead of just having a military policy against gays that could be changed immidiatly we have to expend political energy to undo what was done, taking attention away from ENDA, DOMA, etc…
Kevin
And this has what exactly to do with sexuality?
terrwill
So to appeast the lunatics who are so damm ascared of the Gays in the military, on submarines now there is going to have to be four different kinds of shower/bathrooms:
Boys
Girls
Boys who like Boys
and now……
Girls who like Girls??????
B
No. 2 · Cam wrote, “That is why, contrary to what Barney Frank would try to tell you, that DADT was so horrible, everything before it was just military policy, policy that can be changed with a snap of the head of the military branch’s fingers….Frank actually wrote a discriminitory law against his own kind and it passed.”
According to http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/military-suppressed-evidence-critical-of-gay-ban-says-author.html DADT was authored by General Robert Alexander and the “Congressional architect” was Senator Sam Nunn. There was no mention of Barney Frank.
Note: the URL mentions someone named Frank, but it is Nathaniel Frank (UCSB). He is the author of a book, “Unfriendly Fire, How the gay ban undermines the military and weakens America”. The URL is apparently a review or summary of this book.
Brian En Guarde
This action proves that what our military does best is to act, not conduct studies. Here, they took action. They can do it again with gay sailors.
Cam
No. 5 · B
No. 2 · Cam wrote, “That is why, contrary to what Barney Frank would try to tell you, that DADT was so horrible, everything before it was just military policy, policy that can be changed with a snap of the head of the military branch’s fingers….Frank actually wrote a discriminitory law against his own kind and it passed.”
According to http://www.towleroad.com/2009/…..uthor.html DADT was authored by General Robert Alexander and the “Congressional architect” was Senator Sam Nunn. There was no mention of Barney Frank.
_____________________
Sorry B, you’re right, I got mixed up because Frank was the point person on the Hill pushing for the bill, and trying to get it passed. I made the mistake that as the bills point person he was also it’s author. My mistake!