Contact Us
CONTIGUGLIA / FAZZONE, P.C.
400 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 830
Denver, CO 80246
303-780-7333, Fax 303-780-7337
Andrew J. Contiguglia, Esq.: Email at ajc@ajcpc.com
Lia Fazzone, Esq.: Email at lia@ajcpc.com
Add it up Entertainment
www.aiuentertainment.com
J Brooks said,
September 22, 2007 at 1:57 am
I think it is a shame that ‘adults’ in powerful positions are using them to punish and attack the young people for how they wear their clothing. Like we need yet another avenue by which to allow law enforcement to oppress this generation. Would it not better serve the public and humanity to reach out to these people and teach them a better way?
cjmac said,
August 24, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Don’t ask, Don’t tell (DADT) is a band aid law that was enacted in the 90’s to try to deal with the reality of homosexuals in the armed forces and to address the changing climate of acceptance of this segment of our population. It is a law that attempts to recognize the existence of this faction of our society but not openly sanction its presence within a specialized society called the armed forces.
If one looks at 10 U.S. Code, section 654, the primary reason the armed forces exists “is to prepare for and prevail in combat should the need arise”. What does race, gender, or sexual preference have to do with the success in meeting this requirement? Whether military personnel is male or female, white, black, Hispanic , Asian, homosexual or straight, if properly trained, would they not be able to carry out the duties necessary to be successful in combat or, to meet the performance standard of any military assignment? Does any one of these preclude a person’s ability to fire a weapon and follow orders? I think not.
The issues of race and gender have already been decided in the military. Persons of all races and both genders have proven to be effective members of the armed forces and have distinguished themselves in wars from WWII to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last bastion of prejudice in the military is the homosexual community. If the belief is that the ideal of unit cohesion (bonds of trust amongst the individual service members) is one of the most critical elements in combat capability, is there some documented proof that homosexuals are somehow not able to create this type of trust? Does their sexual preference summarily mean they cannot create trust, that they would put individual needs before that of the greater good, or that they would not make the proper sacrifices to provide for the common defense? No collective proof seems to validate any of these.
Homosexuals are part of our society and the world at-large. They represent 2.8% of the existing armed forces personnel in service today (testimony of Gary J. Gate, Senior Research Fellow, UCLA School of Law to the U.S. House of Representatives, Armed Serives Committee, 7/18/08). This segment of our populuation is not going away and for the armed forces to continue to ignore their presence and to enforce DADT is ludicrous.
Major Witt’s success in the 9th Circuit Court is probably a critical first step in the demise of DADT. The bottom line is that this appellate case questions the previous rationale used to legally defend DADT, the rational basis test i.e., the violation of a right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (see Wikipedia)and, calls for more stringent analysis. The opinion of the court was that “the government must now show that discharging Margaret Witt under that policy would significantly further the state’s interset in maintaining unit discipline” (www.law.com, 9th Circuit Deals Blow to Military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” Policy). If under more stringent analysis, the government’s position that unit discipline (a guiding principle of DADT) was not better maintained by her discharge, Major Witt’s case may well open the door for more vigorous challenges to a law that is no longer belongs in the 21st century.