They happened to notice a marriage license through the window? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

DADT is a bad policy, the police were jerks, and I'm proud to donate to the ACLU. But, contrary to what she asserts in the linked article, the seargant was not playing by the rules of DADT. Getting married is a public act, and getting married to a same-sex partner counts as "telling" the entire world you are gay, under any court's likely intrepretation of "tell". At best the ACLU could make a case that the police violated some departmental policy, but even that will be hard: it's perfectly normal and legal for the police to "lean on" friends and relatives of suspects in order to encourage cooperation.

@2 Some laws deserved to be scoffed at.

@ 2
Sure, getting married is a public act, but someone has to take action in order to find out whether or not someone is married. Being gay in - and - of - itself counts as "telling." Anyone who has spent any time in the closet can tell you that.

BTW I don't mean to distract from this issue, but what the hell is going on in Iowa? They have marriage equality, and their police go after a service member? And the Iowa Family Council's Jack Hurley just announced that that gay marriage is as harmful as second hand smoking.

http://jasonzenobia.blogspot.com/2010/03…

re: @5
Sorry, it was an Iowa marriage license, but it happened in South Dakota.
Apologies.

Does it bother anyone else that the articles repeatedly says "here partner" instead of "her wife?"

it's perfectly normal and legal for the police to "lean on" friends and relatives of suspects in order to encourage cooperation

I am not sure we should define this behavior as normal. It is not perfectly normal or legal for the police to knowingly end someone's career because that person did not cooperate with their investigation.

Had the couple been hetero married, the police could not compel a spouse to cooperate.

I know you’re a flame throwing troll, but please don’t malign good police everywhere by pretending these brown-shirts are normal.

My opinion:
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE. (Pronounced with light but evident Scottish lilt.)

When DADT does finally bite the dust, I bet that some people will try to stop good soldiers and even commisioned officers who were discharged under the old law from re-enlisting. The religious right are collectively such ass bastards.

@2: Big-ass invasion of privacy.

Thanks for pointing that out 7. Since I only skimmed for the high points I missed that. I contacted the AP via e-mail and demanded they publish an apology for using language that suggests their marriage is less valid than a straight marriage.

11: Spouse is perfectly valid for either gender.

Also both women clearly fit definition 2 of wife.

Americans are f-ing nuts! God bless Canada and all other sane nations!

If her marriage license was "sitting on the kitchen table", I will eat MY kitchen table.

@7 I noticed that too.

I think this is a borderline case. Generally, if a cop is someplace they're legally entitled to be (outside the house) they're allowed to observe whatever they can see (the license on the table).

On the other hand, people are allowed to be secure in their persons and their papers and so on.

I imagine this is probably going to turn into a pretty chewy §1983 claim. I hope those cops get buried.

You know, the thing that always gets me when I read stuff like this is that, where I come from, this kind of behavior just falls under the general definition of being a dick -- and the widely accepted punishment for being a dick is to get your ass stomped, and then be labeled an enormous fucking dick for a period of months or years, depending on the severity of the offense. And it always just offends me morally that cops can be such fucking dicks and get away with it. Honestly, 90% of the shit that cops do that's just totally reprehensible, the thing that bothers me most about it is that they're pretty much always going to get away with it. Like, when I find myself tempted to grumble about hating cops, that's mostly what it comes down to. Some of them are just such fucking assholes, and they never have to pay for it.

@15

Canada is a suburb of a country. They have no defense budget, because they're located next to the United States, so they spend all their money on entitlements and services, then pat themselves on the back for being so civilized. The same is essentially true for most of Western Europe.

The Old World, of which Canada was a political subsidiary until very recently, was too incompetent to avoid two world wars, then too devastated to recover on their own and then -- after being the recipients of the most massive foreign aid efforts in the history of the world, from the United States -- evolved into a pack of spineless snobs whose most prized cultural attribute, from an international perspective, is that they're more civilized than the country who saved their civilizations -- twice -- and helped them rebuild both times.

As far as that goes, I hope the United States follows their fine example, withdraws completely from international politics, and spends all its resources on its own people. Not only would we be the richest, happiest nation on the planet, but I for one wouldn't mind watching the fireworks after Russia and China realized that Western Europe was just sitting there for the taking.

Meanwhile, Canada and the Old World are welcome to the ethical fruits of never taking a stand on anything, and I hope they enjoy them.

@18, you had me until "suburb."

Maybe Canada doesn't spend as much as the US on its military because Canada doesn't go charging around the world starting wars for no good reason. And as for "spending all its money on services," while Canada has universal health care it spends half the amount per capita that the US does, and Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US, AND the overall health of Canadians is ranked 37 points higher. Yeah, you Americans are really doing it right.

It would be a blessing if the US withdrew from international politics; you've proven time and again you can't be trusted.

@18, try not to pat yourself on the back so aggressively. You're going to strain your shoulder.

Dan, this is the least plausible scenario ever. Did you seriously not have some questions about its authenticity when you came across it?

@5: Jack Hurley is right! A gay couple got married in Iowa and at the exact same time someone was diagnosed with lung cancer. COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT!!!

Rapid City police
Ass
Holes

"Did the US go charging into Bosnia looking for a war?"

Yes. They did.

Before the Bosnian war, Serbs, Bosnians and Croats agreed to a plan in Lisbon that divided Bosnia into various self governing cantons. They all signed the plan, and incidentally Muslims (Bosniacs) were given much more territory than they have now according to the Lisbon plan.

The US convinced the Bosniacs to withdraw their signatures and that they would back them in war, if it came to that.

So, NO, there was no genocide happening when the US intervened in Bosnia. There was peace happening when the US intervened.

@ 33.

No, do you?

I hope they sue the hell out of that police department for their obvious (and successful) attempt to get this military woman in trouble.

Marriage license does not indicate that the marriage has taken place. The might not be Iowa married yet. So partner might be the right term in this instance.

DADT is pure and total bullshit. Whoever came up with that policy should have a spiked red hot poker trust firmly up his ass. It should be ended, but the 'discussions and consideration' leading up to that point will take years--love that red tape. Thank Barack for standing by his convictions on that one.

However, military personnel give up many of their freedoms when they sign up. Most of those freedoms are related to privacy. Military enlistment just about amounts to the service owns your ass. You go where you're told to go, when you're told to go there, and stay there as long as you're told to stay there. In some instances, you have to get permission to leave base. You are subjected to random drug tests, and can spend the rest of your days in Military Pound Me Up the Ass Prison for a crime that would net maybe 2 years in the civilian world. My point in this is that military personnel are required to notify on any change in their status, including marital status. So, for a service person, getting married IS a public act.

And really--this is South Dakota. While discrimination is wrong in any state (DADT is discrimination, as is denying anyone the right to marry based upon the genitalia involved) is it at all surprising that the police in Sioux Falls are less than ethical?

Rather than focus on one state at a time, wouldn't it be more effective to go to the top on this? Sexual orientation is a part of a person, as much as race, gender, or ethnicity--if you want to claim sexual orientation is a choice, well then, so is religion, and religion is covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wouldn't a concentrated push to have sexual orientation added in to the Civil Rights Act, federal legislation, effectively end this?

@39, Sioux Falls is a good six hours and a different time zone away from Rapid. It's one of two blue spots on the purple political maps; the other is Vermillion, which is an hour south of Sioux Falls.

There's probably more going on here than the surface suggests. Rapid City has the higher per capita rate of concealed weapons permits in the entire country, so cops or no, you don't mess with people out there. It's not surprising that the cops would try to get a roommate to get another out of a dwelling just to avoid potential gun violence, but poking around in private papers without permission or a warrant is not justified.

There are just two gay bars in all of South Dakota. One is in Sioux Falls, the other is less than an hour's drive away from Ellsworth. There is a complicated political environment around that particular bar, which doesn't help with not getting outed out West River.

A former police chief (left office in 2007 I think) of Rapid City had a rather vehement take on the queer community because he was a fundamentalist Christian and the head Gideon (the Bible distributors) for the region. He also has an adoptive daughter who is bi and one of my ex-girlfriends. I am sure that his internal conflict spread around the department and persists to this day.

I know that this is going to get nasty quickly on all sides, so I hope that Sgt. Newsome has somewhere else to go. Rapid City is a popular place to be from, not be in, out here.

@40, I caught that a bit late. Rapid City makes it even less surprising. They are damn near in Wyoming. And share much of the same mentality. They love the bikers coming through every year, but hate the idea of homosexuality. Welcome one alternate lifestyle, and loathe the other. Bastards.

haha 15, I was obviously exaggerating, but thanks for proving my point just a little bit more.

Someone said Canada doesn't take a stance on anything? We took the stance that the Iraq war was wrong and stayed out, that the Afghan war was just and committed several thousand troops (of which my brother was one), and we have been there for about 8 years.

We decided gay people should be allowed to marry and implemented it country wide 5 years ago, gays can serve in our military (re: DADT, talk about not taking a stance), and decided long ago that each citizen would have access to equal healthcare.

Most Americans are great people, as witnessed by many posters on Slog, but it's impossible to read Slog and not come to the conclusion that there are man many messed up people down south.

Back on topic, it seems fairly obvious to me that these police outed these women as retaliation. Even if it's not illegal, one must wonder if you want people with such vengeful qualities in positions of power and authority.

oops meant to address that post to 17, not 15....

29: you Americans used to be cute back in the day, much like adults tolerate a bragging child. Now, the world is tired of you and your lies about "freedom." Funny how citizens of the "land of the free" have fewer civil rights than Mexicans or South Africans.

As to your outlandish claims.

Population of the US: 350 million.
Population of Canada: 35 million
Date current Afghan war began: October 2001
Date Canada joined: February 2002 (8 years ago)
Number of US soldiers killed in America's pet war on Afghanistan: 914
Number of Canadian soldiers killed: 140
Nation with the most troops deployed relative to its size: Denmark
Nation with the highest percentage of casualties: Denmark

30: Danny Williams is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador; his name is not "Danny Williams Premiere."

He went to the US for a heart operation not because he couldn't get the same surgery in Canada for free -- he could have -- but because he is rich, he owns a condo in Florida, where he had the operation, and he chose to exercise his right to pay for private medical care in a foreign country and to recuperate far away from his working environment. In point of fact both the surgery he chose and a better, less invasive surgery, were available to him for free in Canada.

Now you're not even trying.

Thanks @32 and @42. And the other thing you may have mentioned...
In the 2nd World War, Canada was there long before the US. The US didnt get involved until Pearl Harbour. So much for running to Europe's rescue. Agreed, they were the deciding factor, but they didn't get involved any too early.

As someone mentioned above, most Americans are great people. But enough don't want to let the facts (ie. Afghanistan) get in the way of THEIR great story that it gets tiresome.

"after being the recipients of the most massive foreign aid efforts in the history of the world, from the United States"

If you cared to notice, the "massive foreign aid efforts" were more of a sign of support and morale booster than the reason Europe recovered. The Eastern European states didn't accept any of the aid offered in the marshal plan, and their economies grew at much the same rate. Besides, one could easily contend that the creation of the ECSC and increased trading between EUROPEAN countries after the war created much more of an economic boost for Europe.

-So says the american

@46 wrote Pearl Harbour.

You Canadians might have state-run health care, but you'll never shake the legacy of you English overlords!

You know what's hilarious? I don't feel the need to go to Canadian blogs, or English blogs, or Australian blogs to tell them how superior America is. Yet all you numbnuts seem to be unable to live without coming to an American blog and pissing on us Americans. Feeling inferior much?

@48, I'm so sorry that the world hasn't yet bowed to your every whim. If it isn't done, or in this case spelled, the American way, it is so obviously wrong...

Just for historical context, the following is from Wikipedia.

"Current British English spellings follow, for the most part, those of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755), whereas many American English spellings follow Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828.
Webster was a strong proponent of spelling reform for reasons both philological and nationalistic. Many spelling changes proposed in the United States of America by Webster himself, and in the early 20th century by the Simplified Spelling Board, never caught on."

@50 -- What does Samuel Johnson have to say about spelling the proper names of places? Maybe he should ask the Queen for permission to change the spelling.

I am fairly sure people in Puerto Rico don't refer to the largest city in the US as Nuevo York. (They call it Little San Juan).

Oh for fuck sake.

Prior to World War II, the old European superpowers maintained colonies and mandates all over the world. After World War II they were too weak to maintain colonial dominion over their extraterritorial holdings so they started to withdraw. But first, they asked the United States to support them. So the British started the coup in Iran, but the Americans finished it. The French started the war in Indochina, but the Americans took it over. And the British created the unmitigated clusterfuck of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, but the Americans ultimately took responsibility for it.

Then, after 500 years of colonialism, enforced by massive navies built with foreign timber, once their crown jewels were forged of South American gold and their economic empires established by East Indian trade, and their museums packed with plunder from the ancient civilizations of the world -- and after centuries of creating one perpetual genocidal conflict after another all over the world -- the Europeans, are now going to talk down to Americans about global empire and socialized medicine and every other fucking thing. Not that they don't still have the Birmingham Six, the Battle of Algiers, and the Munich Massacre to answer for. Not that they don't still have race riots in their own countries as a legacy of their colonial pasts. But they're going to talk shit about the United States and make analogies about children and adults, because the alternative is to admit their own historical irrelevance, incompetence, and their responsibility for horrifying wars that are still going on all over the world.

And of course, they're right as far as it goes. I wasn't kidding about the United States withdrawing from global politics. I wish we would. It would be the best thing for us. History shows us over and over again that extended empires are political and economic suicide; they benefit the ruling class of the seat of empire at the expense of stability and self-reliance. I wish we would withdraw. But that shouldn't be taken to suggest that the rest of you hold some kind of moral high ground on this issue.

And as to Canada -- I say again my last; Canada is a suburb of a country. They joined WWI because they were still part of the British Empire. They joined WWII because they'd been part of the British Empire until 1931, and they still to this day regard the British royal house as their sovereigns. Congratulations on joining the historic struggle in the Middle East after receiving massive trade incentives. Congratulations on exporting a bunch of shitty pop musicians, and William Shatner.

Canada's a cute little country, and I might even like to live there (for kind of the same reasons I sometimes think about moving to the suburbs -- to get away from all the pressure and intensity of city life). But geopolitically, they're extras. They're redshirts. In a Peter Jackson movie they wouldn't even be played by humans -- they'd be one of the computer-simulated mob of client states that mostly distinguishes itself by trying to decide what other country's agenda they want to sign onto. That's a good thing, because you never have to take responsibility for anything bad (see above re Afghanistan and Iraq) but don't mistake a lack of national volition for moral superiority.

@18 - I believe most of the nations of Africa, South America and Asia would heave a sigh of relief at the idea of the United States never interfering in international politics again. A few hundred thousand dead in Iraq are reaping the fruits of the States taking an ethical stand on something - too bad it was completely fucking wrong.

Get back to international politics when your country figures out international geography.

It's certainly not right for her sexual orientation to be a factor in her discharge. But here we have an Air Force Sergeant that probably knows where to find a person with an outstanding arrest warrant and will not help police find them. I know I am making some assumptions here, but this doesn't sound like a couple that sets a good example for marriage equality. I tend to think that if I ever get the right to marry the person I love, I am accepting quite a bit of responsibility for that person. It's very unfortunate the way this happened, but I'm having a hard time feeling sympathy for anyone involved, except the person in Alaska who had their property stolen.

"You know what's hilarious? I don't feel the need to go to Canadian blogs, or English blogs, or Australian blogs to tell them how superior America is. Yet all you numbnuts seem to be unable to live without coming to an American blog and pissing on us Americans. Feeling inferior much?"

You know what's hilarious? That Americans can't take the smallest criticism without resorting to calling other countries and cultures inferior.

Judas, if you want to talk about "moral superiority," the conversation begins and ends with DADT and same-sex marriage.

@56

I believe those nations probably would breathe a sigh of relief at the idea of the United States withdrawing from global politics. Of course, I think those nations might eventually discover that whatever moves in to fill the power vacuum left by a massive American withdrawal wouldn't be much better, but that's not really my point; my point is that most of the problems the world is facing right now are problems that countries OTHER than the United States created, failed to solve, and eventually handed off to the United States -- who were naively willing to take over because those in power believed they were competing with the Soviets for the raw materials in those colonized areas (and of course, the Cold War was another mess that Europeans failed to address themselves).

I'm not saying the United States hasn't done terrible things and made terrible mistakes. I'm saying people in other countries should shut the fuck up about it. Whatever Americans are doing wrong right now, Europe fucked it all up for centuries beforehand. It's disgusting and hypocritical to withdraw from the game of global empire after you've been plundering the entire planet for 500 years, then claim the moral high ground because the United States is bad at cleaning up the messes that you left behind.

@60, you're starting to sound like top of the class at Oral Roberts University. Chill.

#60: what an incredibly blinkered, skewed view of history. You seem to be saying that the United States has never dabbled in colonialism. How about native populations? Hawaii? Alaska? Puerto Rico? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

#61: I never said those were the "overriding moral issues in the whole universe," but certainly they're a strong indication of America's claims to morality, freedom, equality, democracy, and similar claims.

@59

Really? DADT is where any conversation about moral superiority begins and ends, does it?

Odd. I might have chosen something like prison labor or lynch mobs for adultery, but if DADT is really the end-all be-all of moral turpitude in your book, you're welcome to it.

You seem to be saying that the United States has never dabbled in colonialism. How about native populations?

Hey, I have an idea -- why don't you argue with stuff I didn't say, but "seem to be saying." Then you'll always win!

@62

Yawn.

Again, #64, I didn't say ANY conversation about morality. But if you really want to talk about prison systems, the United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world (754 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents), the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world, over 7.3 million people on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole representing 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults. And while we're at it, the US is one of only seven countries (along with China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia) that still executes juveniles or people who committed crimes as juveniles.

@58: If you were capable of actually reading what I wrote, you'd see that I never called anyone inferior. However, I suppose if the shoe fits, you should wear it.

If we're arguing over which country has the biggest dick, I'd like to point out Florida.

Judah, I <3 U.

You are so fucking smart.

@66

Yes, and?

@53 --

"Danny" might have access to some kick-ass cardiac care in Florida, but you don't. You stand a much better chance of living a long life and not going broke getting your health care from the Canadians.

@66: Uh, you know why China's incarceration rate is lower, right? I'll give you a hint: higher turnover. cf. the Bodies exhibit downtown.

@73: The USA will never attack Canada; then they'd have no one to snub the health care system of.
Also, it'd be Americans fighting Americans; last time that happened was the American Civil War. (Yes, you Canadians, you too are Americans by virtue of that one continent we live on, what's it called...)

Wow, maybe I'll just return when this tangent is over. You kids have fun together.

@76: Everyone who lives in either North America or South America is American.

Durp we all get it :/

How did this turn into a giant Canada vs. USA debate?

-78

How did this turn into a giant Canada vs. USA debate?

Because we're bored.

And becuase Judah @18 decided to sound like a dick. And because some of us (me included) fell for it. But it was somewhat entertaining. Here's hoping Judah is not representative of US citizens, which my time in the US would indicate he isn't.

I believe it actually started with,

Americans are f-ing nuts! God bless Canada and all other sane nations!

But I'll take credit for it otherwise.

Fair enough Judah. I thought @15 was referring more specifically to same sex marriage.

Well, this is certainly a boring thread.

@82 I was. I apologize for derailing the thread.

This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen.

Dear Judah,

You are a fine example of how effective and wonderful the American education system is. If you had just half a brain or maybe some very basic historical knowledge you might take back some of these ridiculous statements you made. First off, Canada is part of the British Commonwealth and not a "political subsidary of the Old World."
Second, Canada was NOT responsible for the beginnings of the Two World Wars.
The First World War opened with the German invasion of Belgium in 1914.
The Second World War opened with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939.
Third and as a Red Blooded American this may break your heart but the United States was not responsible for "saving" or ending the Second World War. That would actually be the fall of Nazi Germany when Hitler decided to invade Russia. But you wouldn't know anything about that because you are probably too obsessed about that movie "Pearl Harbour."
In closing, I'd like to say that Canada, along with Britian (who did at one time have the most powerful military in the world) has a very effective military system which is currently serving in our country as well as many others along with our fellow Americans. So please, I implore you, try to get your head out of your ass. You might enjoy the fresh air once in a while.

Woops sorry for the typos in last post.

Judah continues to show fine examples of stupidity and ignorance.

For instance, the United States and the U.S.S.R. were involved in the cold war, not the Europeans. If anyone has ever owned an old globe (or map) with the Former Soviet Union on it, you would see that the majority of that Union fell in ASIA as well as some parts of Eastern Europe, most of that being Russia.

You know what's hypocritical and disgusting? People like you Judah, who claim that the United States was commissioned (and not INVADED for their oil and other resources!) by poor third world countries to clean up their messes. That you believe that the whole world would collapse if the Americans would cease to be. That, my friend, is disgusting.

I'm interested to learn that Britain is not part of the Old World.

Judah, I read all of your posts, comprehended them, and don't think you were grossly incorrect or unnecessarily rude. I don't know what the deal is with everyone else, though.

@86

First off, Canada is part of the British Commonwealth and not a "political subsidary of the Old World."

Canada was part of the British Empire until 1931, and, since Canada is still a constitutional monarchy with its royal house located in London, I'd say it's fair to refer to them as a political subsidiary of the United Kingdom -- which is part of the Old World.

Second, Canada was NOT responsible for the beginnings of the Two World Wars.

Please quote the part of my post where I said that they were.

Third and as a Red Blooded American this may break your heart but the United States was not responsible for "saving" or ending the Second World War. That would actually be the fall of Nazi Germany when Hitler decided to invade Russia.

You know what the first thing out of Winston Churchill's mouth was when he heard about the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor? He said, "We have won the war!" So, evidently he though U.S. involvement was important.

Aside from the commitment of troops, the American supply of materials -- bombers, fuel, ammunition, etc -- to the Western European powers during WWII was a pivotal factor in the Allied victory in Europe. Germany may or may not have collapsed under the weight of its own strategic failures. William Shirer makes a good case that Germany had lost the war the minute the first shot was fired, by virtue of a failure to use their expansions into Austria, the Baltic states and Northern France to build up their capacity and then, once the war had begun, to make intelligent choices about which direction they should go. But whatever might have happened, the war would have lasted much longer and gone much worse for the Allies if the United States had not committed wholeheartedly to supporting the Allied effort. The aftermath certainly would have been worse without the Marshall Plan -- leaving aside, of course, the likelihood that the Soviet Union would have acquired considerably more territory in Europe if the United States had not intervened to stop them.

For instance, the United States and the U.S.S.R. were involved in the cold war, not the Europeans.

ORLLY? I think the population of West Germany might beg to differ. It might also come as a surprise to the residents of Austria, Italy and Greece. And, of course, all the original members of NATO.

the United States was commissioned (and not INVADED for their oil and other resources!) by poor third world countries to clean up their messes. That you believe that the whole world would collapse if the Americans would cease to be.

I suggest you read... well, anything, frankly -- but in particular All the Shah's Men, for a history of Anglo-American involvement in Iran, The Pentagon Papers(New York Times omnibus edition) for a history of Franco-American involvement in Southeast Asia, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem and The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict for a history of the utter failure of the British Mandate in Palestine and how it led to the conflict there. Get back to me when you've finished those and we'll talk more.

This is certainly one of the more bizarre threads I've seen in a while. Strange how a post on a person's violation of privacy and subsequent career destruction due to vengeful people in power and bigoted DADT rules in the military somehow turned into a USA/Canada pissing match and a 'who won WWII' argument.

Anyway, go ACLU.

Also, Cascadia is obviously the superior nation.

Yeah, go ACLU. I'd happily support them if they were dedicated to defending the whole Constitution, and not just the parts they like. Sadly, that's not the case.

@ 95, I'm betting that you mean the Second Amendment. Well, there is no shortage of lawyers taking up that cause. No need for the ACLU there.

I'm sorry I know these posts are quite off topic. I hope they don't get deleted.

First Judah, you are right about the United States helping the "Allied Forces" (I'd like to draw your attention to that word Allied for a moment) win the war. They were not, solely responsible for winning the war. You know what other army collapsed when they decided to invade Russia? Napoleon's and that had NOTHING to do with the Americans.

Let's move on. The Cold War, which did involve West Germany also involved Latin America and Southeast Asia, where the U.S.S.R. helped with the communist revolutions that were taking place in those countries. It's quite safe to sy that it wasn't just "europe making a mess out of itself."

I'm glad you brought up the Middle East and Southeast Asia! How ARE those countries doing right now? That war in Iraq, how's IT going hmm?? Thinking about retreating yet? Or the Vietnam war, that's a doozy isn't it, how did THAT go for you and the French? Or the current state of the Middle East, how's THAT going? Oh and how ARE your relations with Iran now, seriously? ?

Yep, Matt, "no shortage of lawyers" that I cheerfully contribute great gobs of money to keep fighting the good fight. But I certainly won't give a dime to an organization that opposes that fight.

Sorry, but it isn't true the that sergeant broke no laws.

DADT is a federal law, and getting married to someone of the same sex while in the military violates it.

It's a stupid, evil, pointless law, and the police were utter tools to turn her in. The law has to go, and at some point, the whole thing is going to be declared unconstitutional. But the fact is, good law or bad, it's the law and she broke it.

Just because it is widely known as "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't mean that's the complete text of the law. Actually, the law specifically cites same sex marriage as cause for separation - the "don't tell" clause is in separate clause.

That said, I hope she wins the case.