re: #141 Obdicut

. DADT is a policy mistake, not a constitutional violation of rights.

It’s both.

In what way is not not a constitutional violation of rights?

The military is a very special situation. Women, right now, are barred from service in combat units in a direct combat role. In no other line of work can such rules be set. If you were right about the constitutional issue, it would follow that this rule, too, must be unconstitutional. But it’s not.

Civilian rights do not extend, unabridged, into military settings. In civilian life, nobody can order you to go get killed, or even risk it. For instance.

In the military, there had better be a good reason, but war offers all too many good reasons why some must do dangerous things that may well get them killed, if others are to live.

That’s why DADT is not a constitutional violation of rights. Because the military is an exception to those rights.