I don't know how many have heard this ,but I think the city officials of Berkeley should get a ton of e-mails. they city has requested the Marines get out of the city read story here www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327466,00.html
berkeley ca
- Thread starter rocket12
- Start date
- Status
JuanCarlos
New member
Well, the city does have a law barring discrimination which the Marines (and military in general) don't abide by. Seems reasonable that the city wouldn't welcome their presence there.
I'm not generally a fan of the "federal funding bat," either. If you want to take away federal money from the city for given projects, that's absolutely dandy...but then stop taxing that city's citizens for those services and allow the city/state (since it's not like the City of Berkeley runs UC Berkeley) to tax its own citizens for them.
I'm not generally a fan of the "federal funding bat," either. If you want to take away federal money from the city for given projects, that's absolutely dandy...but then stop taxing that city's citizens for those services and allow the city/state (since it's not like the City of Berkeley runs UC Berkeley) to tax its own citizens for them.
JuanCarlos
New member
Oh good Lord are we really going to have to go into this? Are you saying you can't think of a single policy in the military that might be just a smidge discriminatory?
EDIT: Note that the law in Berkeley specifically bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Even without going into the gory details of DADT, and whether allowing single gays to serve so long as they don't go into their personal lives is discriminatory, it's pretty easy to show that the military discriminates based on sexual orientation. Gays can legally marry in Massachusetts, yet legally married homosexuals are not treated equally to legally married heterosexuals. Hence, discriminatory based on sexual orientation. Period.
Does this only apply to places you don't like, though? I mean, would you be okay with the feds withholding money from your home state or city until they enacted a policy you disagree with?
I was speaking of the withholding of federal funds to influence local policies in general, it has nothing to do with Berkeley in particular. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Berkeley, CA or Branson, MO it's a load of crap. I don't like it even when it's used to further a policy I actually support.
JuanCarlos
New member
Nuh uh!
In seriousness, though, care to elaborate? Is it the first part, or the second part, that you take issue with? I will admit that perhaps I should add a "to me" after "reasonable" in that second sentence. Maybe that was the problem. Hard to tell, though, considering the lack of content in your response.
Brevity is not always the soul of wit, my friend.
I see, so if you are going to use the term discrimination that loosely then yes, they do discriminate. The military also discriminates against officers having sex with noncoms, anyone having relations with a sibling or parent. Is that fair? Sure it is, discrimination (in the wide definition you use) is more often than not a good thing. I was in the Coast Guard, I thank God there was discrimination then. Boats don't provide much room or privacy, any gays that may have been there kept it to themselves. The military is a unique institution, troops often in close proximity to one another without the ability to choose where and when.
It's voluntary too. If you don't like the rules, don't join. Berkley can slip off into the ocean for all I care. And the judges in Mass. don't dictate military protocol.
JuanCarlos
New member
It's not exactly a "wide" definition. It's the definition that the City of Berkeley uses. The military has policies that specifically affect people based solely on sexual orientation. So, if an officer has a homosexual relationship with an enlisted member, not only are they violating fraternization policies but also policies against homosexuality.
Also, homosexuality is a status that has nothing to do with the miitary; officer/enlisted relationships are established within the military, hold very definite meaning within the military, and relationships (particularly within chain of command) will generally involve superior/subordinate relationships. A homosexual relationship between two enlisted members, or a servicemember and a civilian, does not have this issue.
Besides, officer/enlisted relationships within a marriage are a-ok anyway. I believe the only limitation is that the relationship must predate the commissioning, or some such. But the military will not separate me for being married to an officer; though obviously they will generally keep us in widely separated chains of command if possible.
Homosexual marriages (and whether anybody likes the term or not or agrees with their existence, they are legal in multiple US jurisdictions...only one will perform them, but others recognize them as well), on the other hand, is grounds for immediate separation. The only way to avoid this is if you somehow managed to keep the marriage a secret...but of course this means no BAH, separation pay, benefits for your spouse, etc...all of which heterosexuals are free to enjoy. Very tangible benefits most of which have very specific dollar values. Hence my allusion below to paying people less based on race.
Though I suppose we could get into the whole "homosexuality is a choice, unlike race" thing. That might be loads of fun.
So is just about anything else except for the criminal justice system or taxes. If an employer had a policy that blacks will be paid less than whites, that would be discriminatory as well; but working there is voluntary, so I guess you'd be alright with that.
Would this apply for other forms of discrimination, or are you only okay with it in regards to homosexuals?
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
The entire South, from southern Virginia all the way over to eastern Texas, could slip of into the ocean for all I care. Hell, so could Texas. And actually, since it would be oceanfront property then, I'd say a large portion of the lower Midwest would be welcome to follow. But I hardly see the relevance of what regions or locations you don't care for, as I imagine you don't see the relevance of mine.
I mean, I know I've participated in a few discussions regarding Texas on this forum and others without feeling the need to state my desire to see the entire state nuked from orbit.
Very true. Of course, this isn't the issue. We were discussing whether the military has policies discriminating based on sexual orientation, not whether any given judges should strike down that policy or (for that matter) whether the policy even should be struck down. It's perfectly possible to accept the fact that the military discriminates based on sexual orientation without accepting that this is a good or bad thing.
But whatever. I don't expect on this forum that something so simple and obvious as the fact that the military does discriminate based on sexual orientation (not whether they should, mind you) to be accepted without bitter protest.
Of course, if we could move beyond this simple issue we could discuss the fact that the group that the city is allowing to protest (Code Pink) is a more general anti-war group, rather than a gay rights group...even though the city is using the anti-discrimination law as a justification for these actions. Or that giving this single group preferential treatment (not discussed in the anemic OP) and not groups holding opposing views might be a violation of the rights of others, or just generally inappropriate.
Who knows, maybe an interesting or multifaceted discussion could occur on the subject. But really, I think this can only begin if the participants accept that the city (and the residents of the area) might have at least some legitimate issue with an organization that discriminates openly against a significant number of their own. Otherwise it'd just be nothing but the standard "stupid hippies" circle-jerk. Though some of you seem really anxious to get to the jerking, so I guess I won't keep you.
Yes, I understand they are using the term loosely as well, many people use the term to invoke an emotion response.
So? How does a pair of guys sodomizing each other in the bunk next to you add to unit cohesion?
Are you saying it's the same? A gay can keep his personal life personal and not act on his impulses. Are you saying that the various races can't help acting on their impulses? And it doesn't matter if a jurisdiction considers it legal. That isn't how it works. What if a jurisdiction considers sex with minors legal? Is the entire military compelled to honor it? Or even the one there? The UCMJ is 'uniform'.
Actually, I would be. As well as visa versa. But it's besides the point, the federal government isn't a private company, it operates from taxes paid by all. If the military paid blacks less, you'd have a point.
Quote:
If you don't like the rules, don't join.
I already mentioned a few discriminatory acts based on sex I agree with, I could go on but I also said why it isn't a good idea in the military. So far you've avoided the point.
Who's bitter? It sounds like you are. No, the military doesn't discriminate on orientation. They have no idea if you are gay or not, it isn't like race. They do discriminate against having same sex relations for the reasons I've given.
I don't agree that it's an unfair practice so I can't agree that it's a legitimate beef. Just more nonsense from people who are led by their animal nature.
JuanCarlos
New member
Bring it, sissy.
I actually put that in there just for you.
Texas isn't that bad, really.
I mean, I'd rather live there than Berkeley, that's for sure. Seriously.
Right, because it would be impossible to allow gays to openly serve (and recognize marriages from jurisdictions that allow it) without addressing this issue.
Out of curiosity, how does having a guy and a girl sodomizing each other (or just enjoying plain old vaginal intercourse) in the bunk next to you add to unit cohesion? I guess we need to ban heterosexuals, too.
Oh, wait, we simply enact policies to keep them from sodomizing each other in the bunk next to me instead. Seems reasonable. Oh, and I was talking about heterosexuals there...but I suppose the fact that I had to clarify proves my point (or rather proves how ludicrous yours was).
Or are you suggesting that gays are dirty animals that can't control their impulses enough to avoid having sex in inappropriate areas and at inappropriate times (at least moreso than heterosexuals...some of the stories I could tell you from Iraq, or even just from my time on active duty...let's just say "yay for the co-ed Army")? Also note that this is different from requiring them to remain celibate (and, where it would otherwise be legal, unmarried) for the duration of their career.
Yes, and straight servicemembers face no such requirement. I was free to get married, the Army extended benefits to my wife, and I received both BAH and separation pay while deployed. I didn't have to worry one bit about the military finding out I was married. I can have sex with my wife as much as I want, and I don't have to worry about anybody finding out about it. Sure, if I decide to go discussing it I may well end up talking to the EO officer, but it's not like I'm going to be separated simply because I enrolled my spouse in DEERS.
That's because honestly whether it's good for the military or not wasn't the point...simply whether or not they do discriminate. Whether or not they should do so is irrelevant to the matter, since we're discussing whether this policy (regardless of its justification) would further sentiment against the organization given the local population demographics of someplace like Berkeley or San Francisco.
You posted only one article (not "articles"), which I did read, which said no such thing. If you could point me to the portion of that article where anybody from the Berkeley city council stated their reasoning, I'd be happy to stand corrected. I've read other articles on the issue as well, mind you, and already participated in a lengthy discourse on the subject...and I'd agree that anti-war and even general anti-military sentiment contributes to the issue as well. But yes, the DADT policy does contribute to the general anti-military sentiment as well. Honestly, if somebody hadn't decided to pick up the "the military totally doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation" ball and run with it, I'd probably have left it at that.
Though yes, I'll agree that exploring the application of their anti-discrimination law (yeah, good luck with that guys) is just one aspect of their actions against the USMC recruiting station.
It's easy to be "right on target" when you say next to nothing (and don't bother to defend what you do say).
And I don't know, as long as we're talking about "choices" I still can't fathom why they would have chosen to relocate to Berkeley in the first place (this office opened just over a year ago). I mean, maybe I'm just falling victim to the same stereotyping that others feel like going on about, but if I'm looking for a spot to move my recruiting station to, Berkeley doesn't spring to mind as my first option. Is real estate in Oakland or Richmond really that much more expensive? Because yeah, when I think about "anti-war" cities, Berkeley is probably the absolute first one that springs to my mind.
Also, you guys might want to note than in my original reply I said only two things:
A) That it should be pretty obviously that a military recruiting station might not be welcome in the city (I gave one reason, yes there are others), and
B) The withholding of federal funding, taken from a locality's taxpayers, in order to try and influence local policy is (in general) a load of crap
Really, it was the latter portion that I took issue with more than anything; I hadn't heard about that yet, and if not for that I probably would not have participated in the trainwreck that this thread was likely to (for one reason or another) become.
Nah...I think most of us agree that using Federal Money as a tool to enforce Federal Policy is BS.
It's all about state's rights, right?
Having said that, I just have an almost visceral aversion to Berkeley types. I know better than to visit. I have more than a passing aquaintance with mayhem...I'm afraid the "grinning and bloody" front page picture wouldn't amuse my mother.
It's all about state's rights, right?
Having said that, I just have an almost visceral aversion to Berkeley types. I know better than to visit. I have more than a passing aquaintance with mayhem...I'm afraid the "grinning and bloody" front page picture wouldn't amuse my mother.
JuanCarlos
New member
Well, to a point. There's a line, I'd say, but in general if the federal government has to pull funding shenanigans instead of simply using the good ol' fourteenth amendment, it's probably a load of BS.
I'm more in the "mild disdain" category. But seriously, it's an anti-war little town (and yes, a pro-gay rights kind of town as well), and if I was looking for a spot to put a new recruiting station it wouldn't exactly make the short list. Of course, knowing the military they probably didn't look at anything but the cost of the lease, because God forbid you try and foresee any possible complications before they arise...adapt and overcome, but never ever try to anticipate.
The only real issue I can see with the whole thing is whether Code Pink is being given preferential treatment over other competing organizations that might want to demonstrate their support for the recruiting station. But before I could summon more than a "meh" about that I'd have to know if any other group has even asked, and if they were turned down, etc. For the city council talking tough and trying to, shall we say, emphatically encourage them to relocate again (which is about all they can do, despite their bluster) I say it's Berkeley. What did they expect.
We're talking about a major metro area; they could simply have located a couple miles in any direction and not had to deal with this. This isn't someplace like Montana, where the closest feasible town to locate in is like a hundred miles away. Or even Phoenix, where the individual suburbs are each geographically large. Berkeley's what, like ten or fifteen square miles?
I just think whoever chose the location made a pretty poor decision. I also think that, despite the fact that I am (no, really) rolling my eyes at the fine citizens of Berkeley with the rest of you, it's their city and threatening to pull their funding (which comes from their citizens) is a load of crap. Of course, that's all just bluster too...so maybe the whole thing is pretty "meh."
Where's the logic in that? Men and women have separate sleeping quarters. At least they did when I was in. When you figure out why you'll understand my point.
I don't quite understand the question. If there's a good reason for the policy why should we care what they think?
Federal funds come from all of us and the freedoms they enjoy were bought with American blood, not just Berkeley blood.
Perldog007
New member
While it would make an entertaining reality show to have zillions of brutish heterosexual Neanderthal Christian Marines round up Berkley and move it to say, Iran ( a notably Marine free environment they can be proud of) , I think the idea would not play outside Peoria.
I wish that the good people of Berkley would realize that they can have their laws and way of life because of folks like my son the heathen Marine that go in harm's way to keep it so.
If I have an AK 47 in my face and an Al Queada information gathering team trying to decide if I know anything worth extracting before they behead me, I hope it is a homophobic uncouth Marine and her (my son's Lt was female over in the sandbox, could handle herself in a fight and had no use for progressive values being forced on people) fellow devil dogs that come to my aid, not a squad of PHDs' and grad students from Berkley.
All in all though fair is fair. Secular-Progressive @$$#0L35 from Berkley are generally not welcome in the Corps. Don't see how the Corps can cry about it too much.
JuanCarlos
New member
Depends. I've slept in co-ed tents many times (stateside and abroad) and generally spent quite a bit of time in "less than separate" quartering conditions.
Also, in garrison it's not like women aren't allowed in the male barracks at all...I had an issue with a roommate who thought it was really super-cool to bang his girlfriend while I was on the other side of the room (with nothing but wall lockers between us)...I dealt with it, mind you (as in, it never happened again) but it didn't exactly further unit cohesion if you know what I mean.
And even on FOBs in Iraq, where there are rather strict rules concerning male and female quartering areas (whether CHUs or other housing conditions) there are still...issues. Or in other words heteros have plenty of problems controlling themselves as well.
I see no reason that sex (in general, straight or gay) can't be prohibited in [shared, of course] quartering areas without actually banning homosexuals, and I've seen first-hand that heterosexual sex can be just as disruptive as the homosexual variety.
EDIT: Really, the purpose here isn't to discuss whether or not the policy is reasonable or necessary. Merely whether it is discriminatory (I still maintain that it is). It's at least possible for a discriminatory policy to be entirely necessary, but don't expect those affected or those for whom people they care about are affected to be happy about it. If you really want to discuss the actual merits of the DADT policy, I'd say start a thread. If it's still open tomorrow, I may participate. But for heaven's sake, don't act as though only homosexual sex is disruptive to unit cohesion, because as soon as handfuls of women found themselves on small forward infantry FOBs that argument went right out the window.
EDIT: And seriously, if two guys are sodomizing each other in the next bunk the issue isn't that they're gay, or that sodomy is involved, but rather that anybody would be disrespectful enough to have sex with you present. I see no reason that this can't be dealt with more narrowly.
Maybe we should at least understand why they care. It's called empathy. Human beings are known for it.
EDIT:
Huh. I hadn't really even thought about it that way. But yeah, pretty much.
- Status