But just because civilian laws don't apply doesn't mean that a group of people should be exluded from the military or made to feel like second-class members of the military based on something like sexual preference. I mean, if I tried to join the army and they told me no, I would understand, because not only am I incredibly unhealthy, but I am also a weak little pansy girl. That's a legitimate reason to turn someone down. Kicking someone out because they're a dude who likes dudes? Doesn't seem valid.
No. They shouldn't be excluded. I was more commenting that a military shouldn't be held to the same standard as a civil society in general.
Yeah, I should have clarified that I didn't think anyone was trying to say they should be. I just wanted to point out that not being held to civil society standard didn't mean discrimination like that was ok.
It is inaccurate to refer to it as a dictatorship, though. Although the regulations differ from civiian law, they do derive from the consent of the people, both officers and the general public. However, the rule of law is absolute and uncompromising. Law takes precedence over the hierarchy of command, in theory at least. Not only is a soldier not reuired to follow orders that violate military law, he or she is required to not follow such orders. In practice, any soldier who disobeys an order, no matter how immoral, is unlikely to prevail. Still, there have been enough highprofile cases that the dominance of law over command hierarchy cannot be ignored. Even the Commander in Chief is subject to the checks and balances of law. Before anyone takes this on a political tangent, I will say thatthe systemn is not always perfect, and draw the line there. No debare about particular Commanders in Chief will be tolerated here.
