Reply #40: My comment on signing statements???

[lapfog_1]

You are the idiot that brought up signing statements. I wrote that they are irrelevant. How is that "changing the subject"?

And yes, I did read the entire article. The salient point is that the UCMJ (under which the military operates) is not "rules" but LAW. And the UCMJ still has "homosexual behavior" as conduct that can lead to dismissal from the military. And, as others in this very sub-thread have pointed out, there is also actual US Code that prohibits gays from openly serving.. 10 USC 654 (b). Pointed out to you in posts 31 and 36.

Until the LAW is changed by CONGRESS, all President Obama can do is rescind the DADT executive order, which would put gay members of the military at MORE RISK of being separated from their service than they are now.

In other words, the military could start investigations of the private conduct of their service members without any formal complaint and without the service member openly proclaiming their sexual orientation.

DADT stands for DON'T ASK (as in the military NOT asking about) DON'T TELL (as in the service member not telling anyone in the military their sexual orientation). It did NOT change the law or the UCMJ. The President (at least the ones I *like*) should not issue executive orders that break the law. DADT comes close. An new executive order to "allow gays to serve openly" or anything like that would break the law.

You want the law to change (as *I* do) then complain about Congress not having the backbone to pass a law that removes the prohibition.

But don't put this on the President (any President). Presidents are not monarchs.