Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So now we'll have gay guys making out in the barracks?What will that do to unit cohesiveness and morale? We've already got pregnant "soldiers". In a way, it's a good thing obama is an appeaser - the leftwing is destroying the military.
Military Sexual Trauma
What is military sexual trauma (MST)?
In both civilian and military settings, service members can experience a range of unwanted sexual behaviors that they may find distressing. These experiences happen to both women and men. "Military sexual trauma" or MST is the term used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening acts of sexual harassment.
The definition of MST used by the VA is given by U.S. Code (1720D of Title 38). It is "psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a VA mental health professional, resulted from a physical assault of a sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which occurred while the Veteran was serving on active duty or active duty for training." Sexual harassment is further defined as "repeated, unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature which is threatening in character."
In more concrete terms, MST includes any sexual activity where you are involved against your will. You may have been pressured into sexual activities. For example, you may have been threatened with negative consequences for refusing to go along. It may have been implied that you would get faster promotions or better treatment in exchange for sex. You may not have been able to consent to sexual activities, for example, if you were intoxicated. You may have been physically forced into sexual activities. Other MST experiences include:
■Unwanted sexual touching or grabbing.
■Threatening, offensive remarks about your body or your sexual activities.
■Threatening and unwelcome sexual advances.
If these experiences occurred while you were on active duty or active duty for training, they are considered to be MST.
How common is MST?
Data from VA's universal screening program give us an idea of how common MST is. Under this program, all Veterans seen at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities are asked whether they went through sexual trauma during their military service. Veterans who respond "yes" are asked if they are interested in learning about MST-related services. Not every Veteran who responds "yes" needs to be treated or wants to learn about treatment.
Please note that the rates obtained from VA screening cannot be used to estimate the rate of MST among all those serving in the U.S. military. The screening data are drawn only from Veterans who have chosen to seek VA health care. Also, keep in mind that a positive response does not mean that the person who committed the sexual trauma was a member of the military.
About 1 in 5 women and 1 in 100 men seen in VHA respond "yes" when screened for MST. Though rates of MST are higher among women, there are almost as many men seen in VA that have experienced MST as there are women. This is because there are many more men in the military than there are women.
"The Nobel Peace Prize certainly wont be it.
His failed stimulus wont be it.
His health care plan will prove to not be it.
Let him have his "gay rights"....
All presidents deserve a legacy."
They ALL will be, shyttehead Pub dupe.
Long story short here: Obama wants it done the RIGHT way that will last and not discomfit the military, and you Foxbot dupes are sorely misled....
That's how I read it too.you left out this part in your hack thread....Repealing it to have the military do it really isnt a big ta do about.
The military did end it. Last week they followed the court order and put an immediate end to DADT, yet now Obama wants them to reinstate it, and wait until the brass, Congress and whoever happens to be president to decide to implement at some vague future date.
I do find it interesting the way some people go out of the way to justify what their idols do, even when condemning others for doing the same thing.
That's how I read it too.
The military did end it. Last week they followed the court order and put an immediate end to DADT, yet now Obama wants them to reinstate it, and wait until the brass, Congress and whoever happens to be president to decide to implement at some vague future date.
I do find it interesting the way some people go out of the way to justify what their idols do, even when condemning others for doing the same thing.
So... DADT has been gone for a week? And the barracks have not all been painted pink? No increase in dropped soap syndrome in the showers? The military has not imploded yet?
Gee. Looks like gays can serve openly in the military with little to no negative effects after all.
It's done. Leave it be.
The 1993 ban has been displaced by the new repeal law, so it is the constitutionality of that new law giving the military time to adjust to repeal that is at stake. Moreover, the new filings, while not taking a stance on whether the 1993 ban itself is unconstitutional, said that the government had continued to defend it in court whenever it was challenged. But, the filings added, the Circuit Court may consider, in the wake of Congresss repeal legislation, whether to declare moot the case against the 1993 ban itself, and order the case dismissed, wiping out Judge Phillips injunction.
Its funny how some of you will go out of your way to make something an issue that isnt.Gen. Hummer, in his declaration, said that military commanders around the globe had been told that it was their responsibility, and not the courts, to find ways to implement the repeal law so as not to disrupt military operations. If the courts now step in to control the end of the ban, the generals statement said, that would supplant and contradict the judgment of the Department of Defense about the proper sequencing and timing of measures in preparation for the change in policy.
It would seem some of you did not read the article or if you did you didn’t understand it; the questions are procedural, the merits of the case are not at issue:
DADT was repealed, the ruling may be moot, as may be the Ninth’s instructions – the Military, not the courts, would then implement the repeal, which is perfectly appropriate:The 1993 ban has been displaced by the new repeal law, so it is the constitutionality of that new law — giving the military time to adjust to repeal — that is at stake. Moreover, the new filings, while not taking a stance on whether the 1993 ban itself is unconstitutional, said that the government had continued to defend it in court whenever it was challenged. But, the filings added, the Circuit Court may consider, in the wake of Congress’s repeal legislation, whether to declare moot the case against the 1993 ban itself, and order the case dismissed, wiping out Judge Phillips’ injunction.
It’s funny how some of you will go out of your way to make something an issue that isn’t.Gen. Hummer, in his declaration, said that military commanders around the globe had been told that it was their responsibility, and not the courts’, to find ways to implement the repeal law so as not to disrupt military operations. If the courts now step in to control the end of the ban, the general’s statement said, that “would supplant and contradict the judgment of the Department of Defense about the proper sequencing and timing of…measures in preparation for the change in policy.”
That's how I read it too.
The military did end it. Last week they followed the court order and put an immediate end to DADT, yet now Obama wants them to reinstate it, and wait until the brass, Congress and whoever happens to be president to decide to implement at some vague future date.
I do find it interesting the way some people go out of the way to justify what their idols do, even when condemning others for doing the same thing.
So... DADT has been gone for a week? And the barracks have not all been painted pink? No increase in dropped soap syndrome in the showers? The military has not imploded yet?
Gee. Looks like gays can serve openly in the military with little to no negative effects after all.
It's done. Leave it be.
When did you serve to make such a comparison of then to now?
You have been on the bad end of that question. Its bad form, and a sign of weakness to throw that at some one. You going to be like Yoda5 and make the guy speak the secret military vet code words next ?
Well, I'm curious as to his credentials in making a comparison of the military then...and now. But maybe you're right...he just pulled it out his ass.
Gotta love a guy who is willing to defend gay rights.
The Obama Administration, direclty challenging the authority of the courts to decide the time to end the militarys dont ask/dont tell policy against gays and lesbians in the services, urged the Ninth Circuit Court on Thursday to put that 18-yer-old ban back into effect and to do so within 24 hours.
U.S.: Restore military gay ban now : SCOTUSblog
"President Barack Obama took the final major step toward ending "don't ask, don't tell" by certifying its repeal on Friday.
"I have certified and notified Congress that the requirements for repeal have been met," Obama said in a statement. "Dont Ask, Dont Tell will end, once and for all, in 60 days on September 20, 2011."
Gotta love a guy who is willing to defend gay rights.
The Obama Administration, direclty challenging the authority of the courts to decide the time to end the militarys dont ask/dont tell policy against gays and lesbians in the services, urged the Ninth Circuit Court on Thursday to put that 18-yer-old ban back into effect and to do so within 24 hours.
U.S.: Restore military gay ban now : SCOTUSblogTry this, now.....
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
"President Barack Obama took the final major step toward ending "don't ask, don't tell" by certifying its repeal on Friday.
"I have certified and notified Congress that the requirements for repeal have been met," Obama said in a statement. "Dont Ask, Dont Tell will end, once and for all, in 60 days on September 20, 2011."
Gotta love a guy who is willing to defend gay rights.Try this, now.....
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Like I said... the courts had already ordered an end to DADT. Obama got them to reinstate it, JUST so he could get the credit for ending it, instead of the courts.
EGO, thy name is Obama.
What part of 'Obama is an egomaniac and wanted the credit for himself', seems to slip past your comprehension?
"....he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it."
What part of 'Obama is an egomaniac and wanted the credit for himself', seems to slip past your comprehension?Uhhhhhhhhh.....the fact it's another o' those "conservative" Absolutes?
(....From the South-end of a North-bound pig.)
"....he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it."
What part of 'Obama is an egomaniac and wanted the credit for himself', seems to slip past your comprehension?Uhhhhhhhhh.....the fact it's another o' those "conservative" Absolutes?
(....From the South-end of a North-bound pig.)
"....he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it."
Then YOU explain to us all why... when the ban on DADT was already lifted by court order, and the training for the lifting was 90% complete... WHY did Obama have the court re-instate DADT, just to turn around and 'certify' the original actions of the court in ending DADT?
Then YOU explain to us all why... when the ban on DADT was already lifted by court order, and the training for the lifting was 90% complete... WHY did Obama have the court re-instate DADT, just to turn around and 'certify' the original actions of the court in ending DADT?
The standard leftwing strategy - what you can't win in the legislature look for in the courts.
Are you saying the republicans are left wing now?
What part of 'Obama is an egomaniac and wanted the credit for himself', seems to slip past your comprehension?Uhhhhhhhhh.....the fact it's another o' those "conservative" Absolutes?
(....From the South-end of a North-bound pig.)
"....he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it."
Then YOU explain to us all why... when the ban on DADT was already lifted by court order, and the training for the lifting was 90% complete... WHY did Obama have the court re-instate DADT, just to turn around and 'certify' the original actions of the court in ending DADT?
Let's here YOUR explanation of WHY Obama had to have it re-instated, just to end it again.
This should be good.
