# Cops Out Lesbian to Air Force **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460 "2010-03-14T18:08:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/21 "2010-03-15T18:20:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s not completely impossible, it’s just too convenient for me to swallow given everything else happening in this case. Not only did the lesbian in the military leave her marriage the certificate laying around, she left it someplace they could get food on it, **and the police happened to leave it someplace the cops could see it** from outside the house so nobody can accuse them of violating her privacy? Let’s say I’m dubious. This was supposed to say “and SHE happened to leave it someplace the cops could see it.” ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/22 "2010-03-15T18:27:24Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > The cops just ruined a career of someone who was not a suspect, and they did not have to. No the military has full responsibility for that. The police did not lie or misinform the military nor should they be expected too. Yes they did provide more information then necessary, maybe out of spite, doesn’t matter to me. I generally assume the cops are going to be assholes. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/23 "2010-03-15T18:32:32Z")
That’s some harsh shit right there. And what did the police accomplish with their spiteful behavior? Lessening the readiness of our Air Force. Thanks a lot, stupid fucking pigs. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/24 "2010-03-15T19:07:08Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Being able to read the license on the kitchen table through a window does seem fishy to me. Enough for fins and scales, yup. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/25 "2010-03-15T19:15:06Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > What I don’t get is why her commanders discharged her. What, do trained technicians with nine years of experience just grow on trees? Where are they going to find a replacement? > > Military administrators \*hate \*losing qualified personnel. Getting rid or a perfectly functional soldier makes no sense. This is why DADT needs to go - it’s a stupid reason to lose qualified personnel. They have to let her go because that’s policy - once she’s outed, she’s out of the military. That’s sort of the heart of DADT - keep your sexuality a secret and you can stay in, but once it’s public for _any_ reason you’re done and a civilian again. Even if it hurts the military. Stupid policy. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/26 "2010-03-15T19:20:42Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > They have to let her go because that’s policy… What would happen to her commanding officer / whoever’s in charge of letting her go if they _didn’t_? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/27 "2010-03-15T19:54:14Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > No the military has full responsibility for that. The police did not lie or misinform the military nor should they be expected too. Yes they did provide more information then necessary, maybe out of spite, doesn’t matter to me. I generally assume the cops are going to be assholes. Here’s a “what if” for you… I guess then, it wouldn’t bother you, if one of us “outed” a few undercover cops to the Mafia, Russian Mob, or the Familia then? Maybe it won’t be spite, just a little information leak? Maybe it’s spite, but so what. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/28 "2010-03-15T21:47:36Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Here’s a “what if” for you… > I guess then, it wouldn’t bother you, if one of us “outed” a few undercover cops to the Mafia, Russian Mob, or the Familia then? Maybe it won’t be spite, just a little information leak? Maybe it’s spite, but so what. I don’t consider the two comparable. The laws are such that one position is legal and encourages the military to legally carry out their policy. The other position is on questionable legal grounds and encourages illegal activity against the agents. The military policy is a bad one. Placing the blame on the police for the military carrying out policy is a red herring. It fails to address the hundred of people discharged every year for no other reason then policy. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/29 "2010-03-15T22:17:45Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I don’t consider the two comparable. The laws are such that one position is legal and encourages the military to legally carry out their policy. The other position is on questionable legal grounds and encourages illegal activity against the agents. > > The military policy is a bad one. Placing the blame on the police for the military carrying out policy is a red herring. It fails to address the hundred of people discharged every year for no other reason then policy. It’s a shit policy, and it should be discontiuned, but the military would have probably not acted on it, unless the cops turned it into an issue (which they did). So yes, I put a goodly share of the blame on the police, because they knew what was going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/30 "2010-03-15T22:21:55Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Placing the blame on the police for the military carrying out policy is a red herring. It fails to address the hundred of people discharged every year for no other reason then policy. No, it doesn’t. What you fail to acknowledge is that there’s more than enough blame to go around: the cops are at fault for turning tattle-tale, the military is at fault for enforcing it, the politicians are at fault for creating the policy in the first place… ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/31 "2010-03-15T22:47:14Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > What I don’t get is why her commanders discharged her. What, do trained technicians with nine years of experience just grow on trees? Where are they going to find a replacement? > > Military administrators \*hate \*losing qualified personnel. Getting rid or a perfectly functional soldier makes no sense. Gay marriage is specifically included as a reason for discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. [U.S. Code TITLE 10 \> Subtitle A \> PART II \> CHAPTER 37 \> § 654\> b \>3](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html): > [@](#): > > (b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: > > … > > (3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex. My guess would be that her commanders, even if they are among the most anti DADT officers in the army (which of course I have no idea whether they are or not), have little to no choice. If they allowed her to remain then it would set a precedent under which anybody else who has been discharged for a same-sex marriage could sue to get back in or anyone who presently or in the future enters into one could sue since an exception has been made. Since I don’t think any reasonable person would ever believe the officers really were able to read that paper through a window, and it would be pretty easy to prove it in court (“this is the same size font and you are the same distance from it that you were from the paper on the kitchen table- could you read it aloud to us please”) I wonder if she would have an invasion of privacy suit against the individual policemen or against the city. Anyone know? Bueller? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/32 "2010-03-15T23:13:02Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > My guess would be that her commanders, even if they are among the most anti DADT officers in the army (which of course I have no idea whether they are or not), have little to no choice. If they allowed her to remain then it would set a precedent under which anybody else who has been discharged for a same-sex marriage could sue to get back in or anyone who presently or in the future enters into one could sue since an exception has been made. My guess would be that you kind of need to analyze the administrative regulations to perform a proper analysis and form your conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/33 "2010-03-15T23:29:35Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > My guess would be that you kind of need to analyze the administrative regulations to perform a proper analysis and form your conclusions. And my assertion is that you are being an ass in this thread. Cut it out. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/34 "2010-03-15T23:48:07Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > And my assertion is that you are being an ass in this thread. Cut it out. you cant perform the analysis fully without expounding on regulations which may or may not be relevant. simply trotting out the statute and saying “the military had no choice!” is sloppy analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/35 "2010-03-15T23:51:22Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > you cant perform the analysis fully without expounding on regulations which may or may not be relevant. simply trotting out the statute and saying “the military had no choice!” is sloppy analysis. Explain then how it would be legal and no danger in precedent setting to knowingly allow a lesbian who married in violation of the homosexual conduct rules to remain in the service when more than 13,000 other personnel, many of them with very special and essential skills, have been discharged for that or other violations of the exact same code. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/36 "2010-03-16T00:18:45Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Since I don’t think any reasonable person would ever believe the officers really were able to read that paper through a window, and it would be pretty easy to prove it in court (“this is the same size font and you are the same distance from it that you were from the paper on the kitchen table- could you read it aloud to us please”) I wonder if she would have an invasion of privacy suit against the individual policemen or against the city. Anyone know? Bueller? [The ACLU is filing suit specifically for invasion of privacy.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35853365/ns/us_news-life/) Essentially, the red herring is DADT. The real issue is whether the police violated Newsome’s privacy when they outed her. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/37 "2010-03-16T00:28:25Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Explain then how it would be legal and no danger in precedent setting to knowingly allow a lesbian who married in violation of the homosexual conduct rules to remain in the service when more than 13,000 other personnel, many of them with very special and essential skills, have been discharged for that or other violations of the exact same code. “The Secretary of Defense has used this regulatory authority to limit the circumstances under which investigations can be initiated. For example, the regulations prohibit commanders from conducting investigations unless they first have credible information from reliable sources that there is a basis for discharge…The Secretary has broad authority to devise additional restrictions on the initiation of investigations.” [http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf](http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf) would it be a stretch to suggest that it’s entirely possible that information obtained through a violation of a servicemember’s 4th amendment right to privacy is a condition under which these investigations won’t inure? Again, I’m not saying there’s some magical words in the regulations that I know of, but merely pointing out that the statute says there was no other choice and stopping isn’t correct legal analysis. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/38 "2010-03-16T01:37:23Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > “The Secretary of Defense has used this regulatory authority to limit the circumstances under which investigations can be initiated. For example, the regulations prohibit commanders from conducting investigations unless they first have credible information from reliable sources that there is a basis for discharge…The Secretary has broad authority to devise additional restrictions on the initiation of investigations.” > > [http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf](http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf) > would it be a stretch to suggest that it’s entirely possible that information obtained through a violation of a servicemember’s 4th amendment right to privacy is a condition under which these investigations won’t inure? Again, I’m not saying there’s some magical words in the regulations that I know of, but merely pointing out that the statute says there was no other choice and stopping isn’t correct legal analysis. There’s a difference between this and, say, someone telling a commander that they saw Jenny making out with Sally, where the commander can (and very likely would) claim that there was insufficient evidence to launch an investigation. The old “fingers in my ears and I can’t hear you” routine. I’ve seen that happen before in regards to DADT. However, if Jenny and Sally continued to make out, in public, or did something monumentally risky like, oh I don’t know, GETTING MARRIED, there’s not a whole lot the commander can do to avoid taking action. In the first case, if his boss comes down and says “Why didn’t you kick out Jenny and Sally?” he can claim plausible ignorance. OTOH, “Look at this marriage certificate, why didn’t you do your job?” is a quick way to put a hurting on your own career. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/39 "2010-03-16T02:21:28Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > would it be a stretch to suggest that it’s entirely possible that information obtained through a violation of a servicemember’s 4th amendment right to privacy is a condition under which these investigations won’t inure? Again, I’m not saying there’s some magical words in the regulations that I know of, but merely pointing out that the statute says there was no other choice and stopping isn’t correct legal analysis. In God’s Own Air Force? She’s damn lucky those fundie freaks didn’t stone her out on the air strip. The modern Air Force is a disgrace to the uniform they wear and the Constitution they purport to uphold. ETA: In fariness, I should restrict the above sentiment to the upper echelons of the officer corps. I would imagine the average airman could give two shits. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460/40 "2010-03-16T14:42:03Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Here’s a “what if” for you… > I guess then, it wouldn’t bother you, if one of us “outed” a few undercover cops to the Mafia, Russian Mob, or the Familia then? Maybe it won’t be spite, just a little information leak? Maybe it’s spite, but so what. Outing an undercover cop is impeding an investigation - which can probably net you an “obstruction of justice” charge if the police feel so inclined. If the police officer is harmed, you might be charged as an accessory if that was a forseeable result of your action. At the very least, you’ll do an OJ - you’ll go broke getting yourself off the hook. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-out-lesbian-to-air-force/532460.md?page=3)