E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
12:48: The hearing is adjourned. Thanks for following along. We'll be back tomorrow morning for Day Two.
12:47: Johnson weighs in. "I do not view Wikileaks as journalism," says it is on a different legal level than a newspaper.
Levin concurs with that view in his closing remarks.
12:45: McCain up again, asking about Wikileaks. Mullen calls the leak "reprehensible."
When McCain asks Mullen if he believes Congress should take any action to address the issue of the leak, Mullen says: "It's out of my lane. But I feel very strongly that this is an individual who should be held accountable for his actions."
12:41: Brown asks Johnson, the lawyer: If we don't do something, is there imminent fear that the courts will act and we will not be able to implement this policy as the military wants to?
Johnson says have is not here to comment on the constitutionality of a law. But he adds that the timing of the courts' actions is uncertain. When a lower court previously issued a ruling on a case involving the policy, it prompted a flurry of questions about the legal ramifications for servicemembers, Johnson said. "That was a very uncertain action which I hope to never repeat."
12:39: Brown asks Johnson about his job and appointment.
Johnson was appointed to the job of Pentagon general counsel by Barack Obama. He served from 1998-2001 as the general counsel of the Air Force and has also been a successful attorney in private practice. Here's his bio.
12:35: Brown up again. He says that he has attended many funerals of servicemembers or visited them at Walter Reed Medical Center and has never wondered "if they're straight or gay."
"It never crossed by mind," he said.
12:32: Johnson says he does agree with McCain that matters of sexual orientation and race are "fundamentally different" but notes that leading military officials -- at the time -- also predicted negative consequences for racial integration of the Arned Forces.
12:29: Lieberman says that lawmakers "base a lot of our decisions" on studies with much smaller sample sizes than the one used in the DADT survey.
12:28: McCain has more questions, but his time has run out. There will be a third round of questions, Levin says.
12:25: "It's not voting, sir. It's asking their views," McCain replies with some frustration.
12:24: Mullen replies: "The report has spoken to, in great part, their views of whether this can be successfully done or not."
12:22: McCain, beginning his second round of inquiries, notes that he would have liked to ask Gates additional questions. He says he was "taken aback" by Mullen's and Gates's statement that the survey was not intended to be a "referendum" on whether the policy should be changed.
"I never made a major decision in the military without going around to ask the enlisted people," McCain said.
12:21: Levin disputes the charge that Congress is addressing DADT because of a "campaign promise" by the president. Levin says that Congress is addressing the issue because there is a "discriminatory" policy in place.
12:20: Gates has now left, but there will be additional rounds of questions for lawmakers who want to ask the remaining witnesses.
12:19: Sen. Evan Bayh offers a history lesson, noting that there were probably gay Americans "serving at Valley Forge."
12:12: These are the kinds of numbers about the Marine Corps to which lawmakers and officials are referring:
Of those who had worked with a service members believed to be gay or lesbian, over 50 percent of Marine respondents said that that belief affected their unit's combat performance. It's under 40 percent for servicemembers overall.
75% of Marine Corps respondents to the survey said they do not currently serve with someone they believe to be homosexual. That's 10% higher than respondents overall.
12:08: Graham, always direct. "Why do the Marines think the way they do?" he asks Mullen, "a Navy guy."
Mullen adds that Army combat troops have similar objections to the policy and says that new young members of the military may have not encountered homosexual servicemembers before. "They're 18-24, trying to figure out their own selves," and says that Marines have a "lack of exposure" to gay and lesbian persons, Mullen responds.
12:08: Mullen tells Graham that the current policy is "corrosive over time" and "undermines our ability to do what we have to do."
12:05: Graham asks what leads to discharge from the military under the current law.
Johnson notes that about 85 percent of separations are based on statements by servicemembers who say that they're gay.
12:04: Correction -- Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham -- a longtime McCain ally -- has just arrived to ask questions.
12:01 p.m. ET: The last questioner: Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina. She asks if servicemembers who were previously discharged because of their sexual preference will be allowed to re-enlist if the law is changed.
Johnson responds that they should be able to be considered for re-enlistment like everybody else and that their sexual orientation will not be a factor.
11:56: Mullen, in response to a question from Udall, calls the opinion of the service chiefs "absolutely critical." He says he has "incorporated their inputs" with his advice to Gates and the president.
"I haven't grown up in a military where unanimity among us" is sought, Mullen points out.
The service chiefs testify here tomorrow. Here's the full list of witnesses.
11:53: Democratic Sen. Udall next up. We're in the home stretch of first-round questioning; Gates is scheduled to leave at noon. "This is not a done deal once we act," Udall points out.
11:49: Sessions says Johnson was "clearly" in support of repeal when he took the position.
In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Johnson declined to discuss his personal views but emphasized that the report "is by no means a piece of advocacy."
As for Johnson's counterpart on the study, Gen. Ham reportedly told lawmakers in a closed meeting that he personally opposes homosexuality.
11:43: Murmurs from some objectors in the audience when GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama makes this statement: "On matters like sex or race, you can't have discrimination on those bases, but this deals more with actions of an individual rather than who they are as a person."
He calls Obama's support of repeal "a political campaign commitment."
11:42: Speaking about the integration of African Americans and women into the military, Mullen says: "Categorically, in my experience, we are in a much better place as a military because of those steps taken when they were taken."
11:40: McCaskill asks if there would be questions asked about sexual orientation during the recruitment process. Gates says "no, there would be no need for that."
11:37: Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., says she's "disappointed" with some of the rhetoric around the debate, but she heaped praise on Gates. "I watched you under President Bush and I think you called it balls and strikes," McCaskill said. Says Gates "set a great example" serving under two presidents of two different parties.
Gates has served as the Secretary of Defense since December 2006; he was nominated by President George W. Bush and continues to serve under President Barack Obama. He served as CIA director from 1991-1993, under Bush's father.
He was confirmed by a 95-2 vote in 2006.
11:34: Wicker asks Johnson if he can commit to defending the government's current position on the Don't Ask law until that position is changed.
11:33: Johnson and Ham didn’t know each other before Gates tapped them to complete the study. You can read more about the two authors of the report in this piece by the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe.
11:30: Sen. Wicker now asking questions, echoing concerns about the 'whether' vs. 'how' approach to the DADT survey. "The 'should' question needs to be decided by the questions or the courts," says Gates.
11:20: Another new senator asking questions now -- Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware.
11:16: Chambliss asks Mullen to elaborate on his statement that known gays and lesbians have served under his command. "What was the law at that time?"
"If the conduct was exposed, they were discharged," Mullen said, adding that he was responsible for some discharges. He adds -- when asked -- that those discharges did not have a major negative effect on morale.
11:14: Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is next up to ask questions.
11:13: Johnson: "We should assume that we may lose some of our chaplains" if DADT is repealed.
11:10: Gates says he disagrees with the report's idea of giving new access for family counseling for the non-married significant others of both straight and gay servicemembers. He is concerned that extending counseling to the partners of single servicemembers would dilute the quality of existing services to married spouses.
11:09: Newly-elected Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia, a Democrat, calls himself "the new person on the block" as he begins his questions.
11:07: Johnson: "Predictions in surveys ... are valuable, and are of limited value" because they are generally based on beliefs. That's why the experiences of people who have actually served with gay and lesbian servicemembers are so important, he said.
11:05: Thune asks Gates if he would be in favor of adding the service chiefs to the list of officials who certify proposed legislative language. "No, I would not," Gates said.
11:03: Gates, on the timing of repeal during a time of war: Looking ahead "I don't see the world getting to be a safer, easier place to live in where our troops are under less stress."
11:02: Sen. John Thune of South Dakota now asking questions. He is often discussed as a possible Republican candidate for president.
11:00: We've just returned from a five-minute break.
10:52: Webb asks about estimates of what percentage of servicemembers are gay and lesbian.
Johnson says that the resultsare "imprecise" because "we cannot ask that question under the current law" but that the percentage of gay men in the military is lower than in the general population, while the percentage of lesbian women in the military is highter.
10:50: Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., noted that he voted against moving forward on DADT legislation before the survey was released because he thought the study results should be carefully considered.
"I believe you have really done the job here," he tells the report's writers. Calls it "the most crucial piece of information we have" in objectively addressing this law.
10:48: Mullen praises military leadership and expresses confidence that leaders will be able to implement a change: "We are better led at every level ... than we have ever been led."
Making the change "makes us better. It doesn't make us worse," Mullen said.
10:47: Collins calls Mullen's remark that war facilitates change rather than holds it back an "excellent point."
10:42: Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, echoed a point that has been made by Gates: that troops are generally asked what they think about policy issues (No one surveys the military about whether America should fight a war.)
A little bit of laughter when Collins quotes one troop's response to questions about serving with gays and lesbians: "We have a gay guy in the unit. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys."
10:41: Sen Ben Nelson, D-Neb., is next up. As we noted this morning, Nelson is one of many Democrats on the panel facing a tough re-election in 2012. He asked Gates and Mullen about the "integrity" issue of asking servicemembers to lie on the job.
We wrote this morning:
Of the 27 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, several are facing challenging re-election bids in 2012. On the Democratic side, Sens. Claire McCaskill (MO), Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), Jim Webb (VA) and Joe Manchin (WV) are up in ‘12. On the Republican side, Sen. Scott Brown (MA) -- who won his seat in a special election to the generally Democratic state -- must run again in 2012 for a full term. Also, another Republican on the panel, Sen. John Thune (SD), is a potential ‘12 presidential contender.
10:38: Brown is one to watch on this issue. He told NBC this week that he planned to "keep an open mind" about the report. He is up for re-election in 2012.
10:34: Sen. Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, now asking questions. He asks Gates why the survey response rate was under 30 percent. Gates defers to the survey authors.
Johnson replies that the 28 percent response rate is about normal based on previous historical response rates.
From the report: "The 103-question web-based survey was designed to take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The survey was released on July 7, 2010, and was available online through August 15, 2010."
10:28: Gates notes the "intimacy" of those in combat is very different than that of those in intelligence operations.
10:28: Sen. Jack Reed now asking questions.
10:26: There are a few protesters in the audience (silent, so far). One man is dressed in a hot pink jacket in the style of a military coat. He has a sign that says "McCain is a bigot." Photographers eager to get snapshots of him.
10:25: Gates: I would not sign any certification until I was satisfied, with the advice of the service chiefs, that we had mitigated risks.
10:23: Inhofe said that some troops in the field believed that their input did not matter because lawmakers and military leaders in Washington had already decided that repeal was inevitable.
10:20: Inhofe asks Mullen about the effect of repeal on retention and recruitment. "Exposure and understanding," will help alleviate servicemembers' concerns over time, Mullen said.
"Once exposed, it ... did not affect unit readiness," Mullen said of the survey's findings about sexual orientation.
10:19: Sen Inhofe, R-Okla., just said of DADT "it has worked."
10:17: Lieberman notes that only a small minority of servicemen and women have said they want their unit to know about their sexual preference -- and that harassment is against military code regardless of whether it comes from a straight or gay servicemember.
"Standards of conduct will not change one bit," Mullen said.
Lieberman called the policy "a stain on the honor" of the U.S. military.
10:15: Mullen: "We're an institution that values integrity but then asks other people ... to lie about who they are the whole time they are in the military. That's what doesn't make sense to me."
10:14: Sen. Lieberman is up. He notes that the late Sen. Byrd, who strongly favored the ban in the mid 1990s, was instrumental in the decision to address a repeal.
10:10: McCain veers away from DADT to ask Gates about Wikileaks, asking if he's held anyone responsible for the "egregious" breach of national secutiry. Gates replies that the oncoming criminal investigation complicates that effort.
"Not yet," Gates answers the question upon pressing by McCain.
10:08: An argument you're hearing frequently from supporters of repeal this morning is that servicemembers who say they have served with gays and lesbians have largely said that their sexual orientation did not affect their unit's cohesion or trust.
From the study:
When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.
When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”
If troops object to repeal, Gates points out, "they can't just up and leave" because they have contracts and service obligations to fulfill.
10:06: McCain says he couldn't disagree more with Gates' judgment about "mitigating" concerns over time.
When we send young people into combat, McCain said, "we think they're mature enough to fight and die ... I think they're mature enough to make a judgment about who they want to serve with."
10:04: McCain asks Gates about the concerns of combat armed troops about repeal. "You conclude that those concerns ... are 'exaggerated.' How are they exaggerated?"
Gates replies that he does not recall using the word 'exaggerated' because he takes those concerns very seriously. "If we are allowed to do this on our terms, I think those concerns can be mitigated," he said.
9:58: Gates: "It is my worry about the unpredicability of the situation of the courts .. that gives me the sense of urgency about this."
9:54: Levin asks Mullen if he has seriously considered the concerns of the service chiefs before reaching their conclusions.
"Very carefully, yes sir," said Mullen. Gates agreed, as did the authors of the report. Ham did note that the report's conclusions do not reflect the opinions of the service chiefs though.
9:53: Some scheduling debate happening. Levin announced that Gates would do 5-minute rounds of questioning. McCain objected, saying "you're not giving members sufficient time to ask questions" and that additional hearings might be needed if Gates would not stay for longer. Gates volunteered to stay at the hearing for longer than planned - until noon. And question rounds will now be 6 mins.
9:49: Johnson is now making his opening statement.
He echoed Gates' argument that repeal should not take place via the courts, but by Congressional action, so that it is done "on our terms, by our timetable."
9:44: Mullen directly addressed McCain's criticism that he, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is not directly in charge of troops. "I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets," Mullen said. "And I was most recently a service chair myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women."
Here's what McCain told NBC earlier this week: ""I'm paying attention to the commandant of the Marine Corps. "I'm paying attention to the other three service chiefs who have serious concerns. They are the four guys who are directly in charge. In all due respect, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not directly in charge of the troops."
9:39: Mullen, on the issue of combat troops' concerns about repeal:
"War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make change harder; it facilitates it."
I do not believe "that simply acknowledging what most of our troops already know to be true about some of their colleagues threatens our ability to fight and win this nation's wars."
9:36: Speaking about his personal experience serving alongside homosexual service members, Mullen says that society was previously not "as accepting or as tolerant as it is now." But, he added, "America has moved on."
While some servicemembers may "want separate shower facilities... ask for different berthing ... or even quit the service," Mullen said, "we'll deal with that. But I believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other."
9:35: Mullen: "I've been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career."
9:33: Adm. Mullen now speaking. He called repeal "the right thing to do" and said that the survey results back up his belief that servicemembers can "accomodate such a change."
"What was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion," Mullen said.
9:31: Gates also argued that the repeal should come by "legislative means," not through the courts. A legislative repeal would allow for "a well-prepared and well-considered implementation" that would avoid an "abrupt" change if the courts declare the policy unconstitutional first, he said.
9:26: Gates, in his opening statement, is addressing the concern that combat troops are much more wary about repeal, a wariness shared by the chiefs of each branch of the service (particularly the Commandant of the Marine Corps.)
He notes that the perspective of the service chiefs (who testify tomorrow) "deserve serious attention and consideration."
But, he said, those concerns "do not present an insurmountable barrier to a successful repeal."
"An abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive - and potentially dangerous - impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of te spear in America's war," Gates added.
9:23: McCain's conclusion is the key point you can expect to hear from Republicans who are wary of changing the policy during a time of war:
"This is a complex and important issue that could have significant repercussions for our force – a force that is engaged in its tenth straight year of sustained combat, but a force that is performing exceptionally well. At this time, we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration."
9:21: "The closer we get to servicemembers in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether DADT should be repealed," McCain just said. He also cited that less than 30 percent of the military responded to the survey.
9:16: Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee, is now making his opening statement. McCain has taken issue with the strategy taken by the Defense Department in conducting the study. (NBC's Ken Strickland spoke to McCain about those objections earlier this week. Read more about what the Arizona senator said then here.)
This morning, McCain said that, while the military "could" implement a repeal as it has capably implemented other reforms, the study did not address the question of "whether" the ban should be repealed.
"That key issue was not the focus of this study," McCain said. "It is, however, the fundamental question that must be answered by the Congress," not by the president or the courts.
9:13: Here is the actual text of the law, which states that a member of the armed services will be “separated” from the force if it is found that he/she has:
1. “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts,” unless the member demonstrates, among other things, that “such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior” and “under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur”;
2. “has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,” unless the member demonstrates that “he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts”; or
3. “has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.”
9:08: The hearing is underway. The committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in his opening statement that repeal of the "discriminatory" policy is "the right thing to do."
"We can end 'don't ask, don't tell' and maintain our military strength, respect our troops and families, allow patriotic Americans to serve their country without regard to sexual orientation, and uphold the principle that service and advancement in our military are based on merit alone," he said.
9:05: One part of the survey that you can expect to hear about from Republicans who oppose repeal of the 17-year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is the comparatively high percentage of combat and Marine Corps servicemembers who voiced concerns about repeal.
While the study found that about 70 percent of respondents overall believe that the impact of repeal would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence at all to their units, there were noteworthy differences in the responses of members of various branches of the armed services. Among respondents in the Marine Corps, fully 50 percent said that it would be difficult or very difficult for military leaders to “enforce good order and discipline” if the ban is repealed. Almost 40 percent of Marine Corps respondents said repeal would make them consider leaving the service earlier than they have previously planned.
9:00: The Pentagon report (available here) took nine months to complete and included responses from more than 115,000 active-duty and reserve troops (about 28% of those solicited). About 45,000 spouses of servicemembers responded to the spousal survey.
Here's the major conclusion of the report:
We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer [in this report.] Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.
8:50 a.m. ET: Good morning. First Read is in Dirksen Senate Office Building this morning to live-blog two days of hearings on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee today will be Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, and the authors of a new Pentagon report on the policy: Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the U.S. Army, Europe.
The proceedings are about to get underway, so check back in this space frequently for updates.
Leave a Comment:
Well, this ought to be interesting. Should hear all kinds of misinformation and hate from the Republicans, who cannot seem to find the milk of human kindness on ANY issue, unless it affects the rich. I have often wondered if the fact that gays have ALWAYS been in the military, and served with distinction simply gets in the way of what the haters want to believe? Hard to call a whole group "coward" when they are putting themselves in harm's way for the benefit of all of us.
The military should be grilling McCain about the 3 jets he trashed during Viet Nam. War Hero or Buffoon? You decide.
NEWDAY----- That is interesting, if we can believe all of the people in favor of repealing DADT, every homosexual, that, has ever served in the military, served with distinction.
You would think the laws of average would have produced at least one average performer, or even, God forbid, a sub par performer.
I, also, keep hearing how there have always been large numbers of homosexuals in the military, my four years in the Marine produced a total of one person, that I wondered about.
He was an average marine, by the way.
I agree, and would also like to add that I find it interesting that McCain states that these young people, that fight for our country, are old enough to decide who they wish to fight with, yet some of them aren't even legally able to drink a beer before putting their life on the line for our county. McCain, you are an a$$.
I completely, without question support anyone regardless of sexual orientation, willing to put their life on the line for our country.
John, your argument that there are sub-par soldiers in the military that are gay would brand you with UNAMERICAN! and UNPATRIOTIC! If you were trying to make a point about why the wars have not been won with fire works and pats on the back all around. This is the uneven field the right always wants to play on, we can call soldiers sub-par because we are the true patriots, you can't because you are a left-wing pinko commie scum et. al.
I don't think it matters if a soldier has served with distinction or not, he or she still has the basic right to choose who they love. That is what freedom is all about, and any soldier, sub-par or even one's who have only met one homosexual should support that.
Just because i dont want to pratrol,been in fox hole, take a shower or sleep next to a gay person make a hater ? I think think the majority of the armed forces dont want to repealed it, also the vast majority of the american people. IF they are going to repealed it, then also should let the serviceman that are opposed to and dont want to serve beside a gay person leave their service before they serve their term and NOT get dishonorable discharged.If you don't mind to take a shower or sleep beside a gay man that is your prerogative. If you are gay, metro sexual, transgender of this young generation is none of my business, just dont imposed your morals into ours. HATERS!!!!!! COME WITH A BETTER WORD. According to your logic of haters the majority of american are.
John McCain is a bitter old man. Others who've lost bids for the presidency have exhibited grace in their disappointment: think Kerry and Gore, Dole and Bush41. Not McCain. He's fought and slammed President Obama on every occasion, going so far as to switch positions on DADT and other issues so as to oppose and criticize the president. The old man is more irrelevant by the day.
McCain is a Hard Line Bigot. And before all you nut jobs start, being a bigot is different from being a racist.
70% of troops do not think it would negatively affect their combat readiness. Besides, if a soldier is mature enough to die, he/she is most certainly mature enough to respect a colleague. Not to mention this whole "distraction" argument is a moot point since it was used against Jews and African Americans during the 1950's and against women during the 1970's, and these groups of people can serve just as well as, if not above and beyond, their peers.
are you calling people who don't hate gay people haters? wait... what?
I think anyone who is a bigot enough to want to leave the military for something so silly should be dishonorably discharged. You are already showering and sleeping next to gay soldiers if you are in the military. That is the whole point, nothing would change.
Who appointed YOU to decide what a "silly reason" is for wanting to leave the military. If someone doesn't like serving with gays, that's THEIR business -NOT YOURS! As long as that person never harasses anyone or causes problems, YOU don't need to know what's on their mind!
You are the kind that calls everyone that disagrees with you a "BIGOT", and yet it is YOU who shows an absolute lack of tolerance for any other opinions than your own. Your kind of viewpoint in another era would have been among the ones wearing sheets.
What is this costing we, the taxpayers? This is so disgusting, that it's even up for debate, since it's discrimination on a major scale. I wonder what would happen if every Gay or Lesbian walked off the job in support of repealing DADT! How many could the army afford to lose all at once? And what a great message this would send to support fellow gays and lesbians.
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a bigot, only the ones who hate one group of people who differ from them, that is what a bigot is. It is not my business why anyone wants to leave the military. I really don't care who joins or leaves the military. But, the military isn't a revolving door, soldiers don't get to just walk in and out as they please. If the army has a rule a soldier doesn't like (gee, what's the chance of that? ) they can do the dishonorable thing and quit.
I'm with you, if they don't harass or cause problems, they wouldn't even have to quit, that's kind of the point right?
I am a retired marine and am totally against this repeal. I know I have probably served with a faggot at some point in time but if I had known would have put this person in harms way just to get rid of him or her. Things will change if it is repealed and if it is they swhould let the ones out that think as I do that they are nothing but disgusting in there life styles. If they let the ones out that don't want to serve with them the military will loose alot of there service members and wont have the capacity to do anything for quite awhile.
The majority of soldiers would never participate in this bogus survey or any survey unless forced by their command. Soldiers are trained early in their careers to keep there mouths shut, especially on anything traceable like Govt (Military) e-mail .28% is not a credible reflection of the desires or beliefs of service personal. This is another attempt by a very small minority to inflict its will, thru politics for it's agenda. Once again, the media, special Indorest groups and politics are in the way. America please, let the Military run the military. Didn't we learn anything from our history. Secretary of the Defense Mr. Gates says( if not now then when?)I say maybe when senators,congressmen,Governors,send their children to live in a confined environment, thousands of miles from home, in a war zone. I ,like the majority of soldiers beliefs are not considered.We the military already compromised when the Don't ask- Don't Tell was implemented. The military would not have remained silent during the last change of policy if they had known every four years this battle would reappear .When will America lead again instead of trying to follow what our foreign counterparts do in their military.
Wow is that protester really helping his cause? I'm not sure I would feel so secure sitting in a foxhole with a guy who wears a pink marine outfit!
I was in the Army, my drills dogged the hell out of me because I told them I was an Atheist. Pushups, low-crawls through cold mud, they even tried giving me "special details" because all the other good little soldiers were in church. I never caved in to their "Jesus freakish" behavior and held my ground. Too bad McCain and the "Old World, Rich Whities" can't do the same. I don't force my choices on anyone, nor should any government institution force their political agendas on our military. It amazes me that the US military can't even participate in the very freedoms they are supposed to be defending accorded in OUR constitution, Bunch of fu@king hypocrites.
Do any of these folks in Congress actually vote or behave the way their congressional districts or constituents want? When was the last time your Congressman asked you how he should be voting?
Byl,
Wow, nothing like a little hypocrisy. So it's perfectly ok for gays/lesbians to defend their beliefs, but if a servicemember wants to leave the military because they don't wish to serve with gays/lesbians then they should be punished huh? Yeah, that's real one sided in the fairness department. What a joke.
jwilson79,
If every gay and lesbian "walked off the job" in the military, they would be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for everything from dereliction of duty to desertion. Oh sure, it might make a statement, but it would be a dumb one. The military isn't the civilian job world and if you break military law, you get judged by the military and not a civilian court.
I think sooner or later the rule will be repealed and gays/lesbians can serve openly. Which is as it should be. Anyone who puts on the uniform and serves this country is deserving of respect. That should be the only criteria that matters. Not race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.
Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of the issue try to make it about other things. As usual.
Maybe McCain is gay himself. I think he protests too much. This is what happens when lawmaker's try and legislate morality.
I dont understand why people want to repeal 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell'? Its there for a reason, there is no need to act 'gay' when your defending your country, and share what 'gay' thoughts are going through your mind. Homosexuals are already alound to serve in the U.S. Military just dont act indecent towards others in the Military and you'll be fine. I mean others with you would rather not know where you would like to stick it in.
If you really want to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' either have the homosexuals have there own division or put everyone together whether male or female (Yeah, it may be a little disorganized that way with males and females sleeping in the same bunks, showering, and training together, but its the same as having homosexuals serving 'OPENLY' with others of the same sex).
I got point of discussion - why dosen't John McCain ASK the Pentagon to TELL us why we are spending half of the world military budget and not able to finish off cave men.
ASL the Pentagon to TELL us why we need our Navy at a 95$ OPTEMPO. What, has the Soviet fleet redeployed? Does Al Quaida have a navy? Why are we using up fuel, ships and sailors to keep a Navy operating at cold war status 20 years after the cold war has ended?
Why not ASK the military to TELL us what justifies the non-combat 5% across the board pay increase in the 2011 defense appropriations bill.
This don't ask don't tell is a smoke screen. ENOUGH! Any officer NOT blowing the whistle on this ruse shoud do the honerable thing and resign. The military is deliberatly using this issue as a distraction and the Senators are playing along in theis passion play!
Our military "fun junkies" have had their way long enough. time to put the adults back in charge. For 200 years our military honored this country with the strenuous life. Low pay, hard work, danger and boredom. Since the 80's the story has been keep the troops entertained and well paid plus cheerlead for them even when thay can't seem to finish their jobs.
Don't ask don't tell debate is something you'd see in highschool. Lets have a real discussion on winning war at the least possible cost of blood AND treasure under the 200 year old tradition of a citizen soldier!
Everyone is concerned about the gays rights to serve openly. I have served in the military in both our current wars and still serve as a contractor. I don't see anyone addressing the most important subjects that exists if it is repealed. How will the living arrangements be handled. It's easy to say that it should be repealed when you don't have to live in that environment. When everyone is ready to tell the female soldiers that they have to shower with the males then we can move on. So everyone stop making it seem that the people that are for the ban (if that's what you want to call it) hate gays and that is the only reason it exists. The fact of the matter is that with the military's sexual harrasment program it does not matter what you intended your actions or words to be interpeted as, but how the other person interpeted it. So will this cause problems in the units because I have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to me. What will you tell me then, "get over it"? Gays can serve. It is not a ban. They can not serve openly because of these types of reasons. Also for all the people who want to say that other countries have done it, they are also co-ed on everything (showers, sleeping arrangements, ect.) . So before you tell all the straights that they have to get over themselves and shower with gays be prepared to tell the females they have to shower with males.
The study did not look at the question of whether DADT should be repealed or not. The study went in with the assumption that it would be repealed and merely looked at how best to go about doing it. The service chief are all against repealing DADT, it is the chairman of the JCS and the defense secretary that are for the repeal. If you asked the service members themselves, from the chiefs on down, you would find that a significant majority do not support the repeal. I find it interesting that such a low percentage of the surveys distributed, less than 25%, were returned. Is this because a lot of the survey forms that were distributed never actually go into the hands of the military personnel? It is unlike military personnel to simply ignore a request for input like this, particularly not in the large numbers that we are supposed to believe happened here. I am not into conspiracy theories, but something is not right when you distribute 500,000 surveys and get 115,000 back. I also wonder why MSNBC updated this article to remove all the percentages and other numbers that were in it to start. Is this because they were wrong or did someone pressure them to take them down??? They removed everything except to say that 115,000 surveys were returned.
The biggest problem they are going to have with a repeal of DADT is with housing/berthing. You are going to have a lot of service members who are not going to want to share the same room/tent with someone who is openly gay. I can't say I blame them. It is one thing to work with people who are gay, I have no problem with that. I even have friends who are gay. I would not, however, want to be told that I have to share a room or a gang shower with an openly gay person, particularly one that I barely know. Repealing DADT is going to cause serious morale issues and they will center largely around the housing/berthing issue. I think most in the military will have no problem serving with gays so long as they can do the job, they just will not want to live with them. I also think that most gays that are in the military will have the common sense to keep their private lives private. The biggest problems will occur with the ones that have an attitude and push their sexual orientation in everyone's face, making an issue out of it.
With the extremely limited exception of some senior officers, there is virtually no privacy aboard ship. I have been on many ships and can tell you that having gays/lesbians on board will present serious logistical problems. Having lived in the 'luxury' and relative privacy of a two man stateroom in flight quarters (pilots rooms) and can tell you that forcing a straight to share one of those staterooms with someone who is gay would be wrong and extremely uncomfortable. These rooms are so small that you can barely pass the other person without bumping into them. The room width is the same as the length of a typical twin size bed, and that is bulkhead to bulkhead (walls for you civilian types). The furniture in the room (two fold up desks, two wardrobes, and two chairs) makes the space to walk from front to back even narrower. The rooms are about 10 feet long, so there is not much room to move around at all and there is certainly no privacy whatsoever. The enlisted quarters on the ships are large bunk rooms, with bunks three high, many with 100 or more people living in them. The only limited privacy you have is when you crawl into your bunk there is a curtain you can draw, but you better not have even a touch of claustrophobia. Couple this with the fact that you take showers in gang showers designed for a significant number of people to take a shower at the same time, and you should get the point. The army and marine corps have it no better in most cases. Although some bases have enlisted housing where you live two or four to a room, this is not the norm. In many cases, enlisted live in big barracks that house dozens of soldiers/marines in one room. It is even worse when they are deployed at non-fixed bases, living in large tents. The Air Force are the only ones that seem to enjoy a little better living conditions, largely because they live at fixed bases. From the bases I have seen, Air Force enlisted generally seem live two to four in a room. Although they still use gang showers like the other services.
If people can not understand how having gays/lesbians and straights living together under these conditions can present problems, then you are either completely naive or and exhibitionist who does not care. While there are gays/lesbians in the service now with people living in these conditions, it is only through not knowing that many people are comfortable. To know that the guy in the next bunk or in the shower next to you is gay will understandably cause people to be extremely uncomfortable. The issue of how to address housing must be resolved prior to repealing DADT or there will be majorproblems. You will wind up having berthing officers dealing with a flood o requests for a change in berthing location. Most of the people in the military will accept serving with gays/lesbians so long as they can do the job, but the housing situation must be addressed if you want this acceptance.
I am getting tired of people comparing this to the integration of blacks in the military. This is no where close to being the same. It's just propaganda that you are using to try to make people feel bad about not wanting this. Were the blacks not let in because they chose to be black? Were they not let in because it would cause sexual tensions because they wanted to have sex with the whites? No those were not the reasons. Get over yourselves and realize just like you have rights so do I, and my rights give me the right to be comfortable in my work environment without having a naked guy behind me checking out my butt. And to address the next logical argument. I'm not saying all gay males are attracted to me. But they are gay because they are attracted to the same sex. So if it's not me it will be someone. Whatever happened to not having to work in a hostile work environment.
Brandon, I'm willing to bet my mortgage that your butt is safe from all those desperate, cubicle-squatting gay predators that you fear so much. Heck, you probably just have an average, not-worth-checking out-twice butt...so rest easy, why don't you?
Brandon - Whatever happened to not having to work in a hostile work environment.
WTF???? This is what I am so annoyed at. Somebody actually posts a stupid a comment as "Whatever happened to not having to work in a hostile work environment." What NO TROOP has EVER questioned the living arangements wen the motor rounds are dropping on the perrimeter or when charlie is 30 meters out.
GET REAL folks. This is the level our military has decended too. Let em serve - BUT tets all serve like our fathers and grandfathers did. LOW PAY, LONG DAYS, and if that means a lower level of education for our recruit GOOD. Less bad habits to train out. If it means we get a recruit with a lower IQ GOOD. We don't need the debate from the smat guys when we say take that hill.
Don't ask don' tell. What a crock. We won't be having these kind of interesting discussions when our boys get their a$$es handed to them cause that IS what IS going to HAPPEN. Check your history.
Sorry to say, but gay guys do shower with straight guys right now, so if they are going to check you out...they probably already are.
Spread love, not hate
I feel that we should not have open gay and lesbians in our military it is morally and socially wrong. This is a completely different issue than race or religious differences and it is corrupting our views, not to mention our children's views of what is accepted as the norm. Next I suppose we as a society will learn to accept child molestation and being socially accepted and just part of the norm! It's one thing to choose the lifestyle of being gay and it's another to openly display it for all to see...
Where do we draw the line with freedoms in our society? Everyone is free to love whom they choose? What's next, should fathers and sons be allowed to be love with each other in intimate ways? Or should a 40 year old be allowed to wed a consenting 15 year old girl. The question is not whether DADT should be repealed, but whether or not homosexual and lesbian lifestyles should be outlawed. It is not natural for same sex genders to have sex with one another. This should be outlawed, because in 10 years pedephiles will want to protest for equal rights too. Again, when does society draw the line as to what is acceptable and what is not? The repeal of DADT isn't the issue, the validity of homosexual and lesbian lifestyles is.
Excellent point Brandon!
When I was in the military, the big issue pounded into our heads was "equal opportunity" training and "sensitivity" training. They reassured us that the slightest, even unintentional remark from a Caucasian can be offensive to blacks or Latinos, and the same for remarks or jokes by males around females. That would make a "hostile work environment" and they assured us it would be dealt with "severely".
Nobody EVER trained the blacks to be concerned about insulting Whites though. I heard a number of offensive comments by blacks about "F-cking crackers", "whitey" or worse, with total impunity. I guess Whites must be insulted and disparaged to have a truly "equal" society.
Now we have all of that AND catering to gays. Evidently, the "hostile work environment" doesn't apply to Whites or heterosexuals.
I will try to address all of your comments. First with the stupid one, I don't care if I might be ugly and they don't check me out. That does not mean they won't check out the person next to me. As for is this what our military has come too? It has always been an enviorment like this. Yes you are right I never complained who was standing next to me when we were being attacked and I still don't seeing how I am still here for my 5th year since the wars started. But I do question it when no rounds are coming in and I'm in a open bay shower or living in a tent and have to undress less than an arms length from the person next to me. My hostile work environment comment was based on the fact that soldiers are aren't supposed to have sexual poster (even swim suit photos) in their rooms in the states because someone might see it and get offended. So if I can't hang a poster of Halle Berry in a swim suit in my room because someone might get offended why would having to shower with someone sexually attracted to you be ok. And to be positive. You are correct they do shower with us right now and that proves my point of why this policy works. It is not a problem because you do not know. If a man dresses like a woman and goes in to the women's bathroom its not an issue until it is found out he is a man. As long as they keep it to themselves there is no proof and it can be denied. Once it is discovered thats when the mass hysteria will kick in. The policy does not say gays can not serve. It only says they have to keep it secret to avoid these types of problems. To everyone who actually took time to put effort in their answers thank you. Calling name and making stupid comments about not being hot enough to be checked out anyways is juvenile and grow up cause your just hurting your cause. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and that's why I serve.
timetraveler sorry I missed your comment. Thanks I'm glad someone got my hostile work enviorment comment. I guess you had to be in the service and sit through all sensitivity training to understand what I was trying to say.
How do you get any work done, with all this constant wondering and fretting about who is checking out someone else's "junk"?? Jeez, I hope my coworkers never get that preoccuppied with MY butt! Just do the job you enlisted to do...let your buddies decide if all those predatory glances at THEIR butts are offensive (or not).
But...isn't that exactly what we're asking of gays? In other words, isn't DADT just a way of saying to gays: Just do the job you enlisted to do. Don't worry about telling your buddies that you want to put your junk in their rectum.
In response to anyone trying to argue against the repeal with the whole "But it makes me uncomfortable" argument, I have one thing to say:
GET
THE
@!$%#
OVER
IT
Honest to god, you cannot possibly be that god damn paranoid to think that every single gay guy wants to have his way with you. You're all so stupid it make sme want to vomit. This is going to be repealed, and you're going to have to deal with it, and I really, really hope it makes you uncomfortable enough to kill yourselves. Or at the very least leave the service, because I'm sure gays don't want to have to put up with your idiocy.
To the sissies that insist gays must have their butts kissed or else they'll throw a fit, GET OVER IT.
You're not that special. If you want to be treated with equal respect, you have to be equally respectable. That means if you have to shut the hell up sometimes and just DO YOUR JOB, then that's what you have to do. Period.
If this offends you...GOOD! Freedom of speech isn't just for blacks, latinos, gays and communist liberals.
Machinehead,
On the contrary. That is what DADT is all about. It is about the gay community that ARE doing a job that is, without a doubt, one of the most respected jobs in this country, and NOT being able to do it without hiding who they are as people.
Last night I was watching some of the recaps of the DADT proceedings, and there was a statement that if you have to lie about anything then you lie about everything. The armed forces are committed to truth, honor and integrity. You can't have it both ways. We expect you to lie about who you are, Oh, and if you want to serve in the military, you can't, under any circumstances lie. ???????
luvmy2boys,
Baloney!
When I served in the military, I did my job, I didn't drone on about my personal inner heterosexual feelings. Nobody CARES! I didn't talk about what my favorite sexual position with women was. That was NOT "lying" about who I was, it was not rubbing everyone's face it it.
Evidently, that's not good enough for gays. They can't just shut the hell up and do their job (well, some do but I'm talking about the ones making a big stink over DADT).
Nobody is suggesting that gays be beaten-up, harmed or harassed, just that they keep their personal perversions to themselves while in the military. Anything that threatens cohesion of the unit is DANGEROUS, especially in war time situations. When the lives of your comrades and the success of the mission is on the line, there is NO ROOM for the social meddling of leftists.
The military is in business to protect national security and win wars, not for helping gay people feel better about themselves.
Machinehead,
Good for you, you were in the Military to do a job, and you did it. Just like a homosexual could do, as they no one would expect anything more or less. You are missing the platform altogether. You think this is about the gays being able to "promote" their sexual preference in an in-your-face fashion. You are incorrect.
There have been 14,000 men and women discharged from the military because it has "leaked" one way or the other that they are homosexual. It had nothing to do whether or not they were doing their jobs.
The military is a business, one in which whether or not you are gay or straight, you should be able to work at protecting national security and "win" wars, without the fear of being fired for your sexual preference.
What was the level of opposition to integrating the armed services to include 'colored' people back way back when?
Anyone have those numbers?
Drive by, I do not know if those numbers exist.
What is interesting to remember is that it was only the Army that was segregated, not the Navy, (by extension, the Marines, since they were less autonomous from the Navy in this days; additionally, both the Navy and the Army had Air corps, there was no Air Force, per se. The Merchant Marines, in which my grandfather was a captain during the war, were also part of the armed forces during the war- and they were not segregated).
Anyway, the point of this is that Truman had ample evidence that segregating those who were drafted was idiotic, since the services for which one volunteered had no problems.
The same situation exists today, since the majority of troops indicate that they know that they have served with gays, with no problems encountered.
Just do it, already!
Drive. They did not poll the troops about integrating the military. What we did have was a strong president who made it happen
NjNb and Patrick- Thanks for the feedback.
Actually, in 1943 there were surveys of both civillians and soliders (Army) conducted, which is prior to Truman ordering racial integration in 1948. The details of this and other polling on this issue are discussed on pages 183 and 184 (actually pages 215 and 216 of the overall document) in the report found at the following link.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2009/RAND_MR323.pdf
There are no atheists or racists in fox holes right? I bet we could add homophobes without even batting an eye.
Black people didn't have freedoms. Blacks couldn't serve along side whites. This is different. You do not have the same treatment for Gays. Leave the policy as-is.
Some states still allow discrimination based on sexual preferences and don't allow marriage between same-sex couples. This isn't that different, they are being treated differently based on being a minority group.
I read an article(MSNBC) that gave the poll numbers that were taken on racial integration. I don't remember the exact numbers(I read many articles from many different sources).
Don't quote me, but I think the percentage that disagreed with or were uncomfortable with racial integration, was around 80%.
That was a civil right, black hates the comparison between the two
John Smith you are a moron...not allowing gays to serve openly in the military is not freedom. We get away with serving because you usually cant tell who is gay and who isn't..but you better believe if we were born with a big 'ol G (for Gay) on our forehead we would not be allowed to serve at all! bigotry and hate is the same no matter how you look at it. It all comes down to discriminating on someone just for who they are.
KALYTYRA------ Uh huh and you had a draft then.
Tell an all volunteer military to "suck it up".
You can reinstate the draft and use them to drain draftees before they get out.
Acyually, I think It would be neat to force a universal military obligation for every able bodied man and woman, no exceptions.
It would bring a perspective to the country, that would serve us well.
Carlos,
Civil rights are rights for ALL people, regardless of minority/majority status. Blacks can hate the comparison between the fight for equal rights for gays and the fight for equal rights for blacks all they want. It won't change the fact that they're the same thing, in principle. Just as blacks can hate gays all they want. It won't change the fact that we're gay.
Also, you said in a post on another thread that, just because you don't want to serve alongside a gay man doesn't make you a hater, but what if I said I don't want to serve alongside a Mexican or African? Would that also make me NOT a hater? Were you serious with that crap?
Chuck was all excited on "The Daily Rundown" as he waited to hear from McCain. So even though the democrats are and will be the majority in the Senate, pundits like Chuck will continue to act as if republicans won.
And sure enough we heard McCains open statement live on "The Daily Rundown" But not Senator Levin's. So much for the "liberal media"
As a retired member of the armed forces, I will tell you that many servicemen and women that did the survey did not give their honest opinion due to fear they will get in big trouble and they would. So that data is skewed. You can believe it if you want to but if you do, you are delusional. This is not whats best for the military, this is pure politics.... Kudos to the Marines that had the guts to say what they think which is closer to what the real story is out there in the foxholes.
My husband is in the army and we know of several gay people in his unit. My husband says that all personal life should be left at home no matter if you are gay or straight. He has no issue serving with gay people and I am proud of him. There is only one person in his entire unit who has ever expressed an issue with gay people. Things change for those who have grown up with the reality of openly gay people. The younger generation of troops we have understand that not all gay people are going to hit on others or stare at them in the showers. Those people that do are not welcome. Your personal life has to stay home!! My husband and I have no problem with lifting the DADT policy. It would allow for people to be able to let the ones they love be there for them during deployment and to just be with them while they go through the stress of serving our country. Like it or not gay people are already serving. They have been as long as there has been a United States. If we take away DADT we can allow their partners the support they need while the ones they love are gone.
My guess is that it is the Marines who did not express honest opinions for fear of being called girlie.
I agree with Retired-2746273. I believe that if this repeal is approved, the door for so much more problems will be opened on our military. Truly, according to biblical laws, homosexuality is an abomination before God, as we are "One Nation Under God". We are slowly and surely as a country getting away from the principles that have caused us to be successful.
Retired - how sad that you are delusional. Homosexuals have served in all branches of the service for as long as we have had a military. They have served proudly; been injured; saved lives of their fellow soldiers and died for this country. They should be given the same rights as anyone else. They will no more flaunt their sexuality than a heterosexual will flaunt theirs - okay maybe they will flaunt theirs a lot less than a heterosexual. They are part of our great nation and should be able to be themselves and not have to lie about who they are. If you are truly a retired marine - thank you for your service. However, you need to come out of the dark ages.
Soldiers Wife - according to biblical laws lying, adultry, coveting a neighbor's wife - all are sins. Should we make sure no soldiers serve who have committed those sins? Plus dear, we have a separation of church and state - welcome to the real world. The "one nation under God" was added in the 20th century - not when the United States was founded. People like you who hate and have no room for anyone who is not just like you are the reason this country is in trouble. Most of know who we are and are not threatened by another's sexuality. We know that homosexuals are people just like we are and there is no reason to treat them any differently than we do those of you who are so damned judgemental.
Sorry -- your Bible has no bearing on the issue. There is a certain First Amendment that prohibits a state religion -- even Christianity. The concept of "One Nation Under God" was NOT part of the founding of the USA -- far from it in fact. That came about in the 1950's under McCarthyism as a knee-jerk reaction to "godless" Communism. It was pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus.
However, if you want to discuss Biblical law, I can tell you that since it forbids laying with prostitutes, that takes care of probably 30-50 percent of the military! There is a reason WHY prostitution is rampant around military bases and it has nothing to do with homosexuality!
It's fine if you want to have your religious beliefs and follow your religious beliefs, but one of the great things about this country is everyone else has the right NOT to follow your religious beliefs. All that is asked is that you don't try to impose YOUR beliefs on others. I can't understand why that is such a difficult concept -- after all, even Christians can't agree with each other!
Alanda my husband and I agree with you. My husband is retired Air Force and I served for 10 years on active duty. When the establishment stands up and says that Gays are not welcome in the military it is no different than saying that women should not serve. The issues are the same. Any one that has the courage to raise their hand and volunteer to serve this country should be allowed!!!!!
Wife, do you think your husband will turn gay if he serves with openly gay soldiers? I don't understand what the issue is?
According to the bible you shouldn't even be having this discussion with men.
Retired, it seems to me that marines didn't give their REAL opinions, because they didn't jive with yours.
Truly, according to biblical laws, homosexuality is an abomination before God, as we are "One Nation Under God". We are slowly and surely as a country getting away from the principles that have caused us to be successful.
The Bible also says, "thou shall not kill". It seems to be the military is all about breaking that rule so I think the institution will survive breaking that abomination thing.
That's right we're all sinners, we lie, commit adultery( just by looking at someone with a wrongful thought)..... . So if you say homosexuals should get special privileges for their sin , then so should
poor sinners like us. Why is that their sin is so special?? If I choose to steal , I guess what you 're saying is that , I should do it proudly. They should amend the laws to accommodate my special sin.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to judge the homosexual behavior but what God has pointed as sin , is SIN, whether it is lying , cheating or engaging in homosexual behaviours.
"One nation under God" , was added in the 20th century but that does not mean that this nation was not founded by men and women who truly believed in Godly values. God has given us all free will, you can choose to repent and be saved for eternity or continue to justify and lose your soul...that's right , for eternity!!
Retired - it's time to allow gays to serve openly, they really already do. The youth of today have more open minds and hearts than our older generation. And - if our allies UK, Australia, France, Italy, Germany, Israel, and others are allowing gays to serve openly - what's wrong with the US? Why are the US, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan not allowing gays to serve openly? It's just wrong when we hold policies in keeping with the countries we are at war with and not our allies. We should be leaders, not bags of hot air... stop talking and get it done.
Seascum....the Bible very clearly states that there is a time to kill. The Bible states "Thou shall not Murder". Please learn the difference before you go off on some half assed attempt to do Bible quoting. You just sound ignorant...but don't worry...you have plenty of company based on what I have read in these posts.
I served in the military when I was 20 years old during the Vietnam War era. Gays should not serve openly in the military...end of story. I speak from experience...end of story. Sure some folks may not have a problem with it but out of only 28% of the military that answered the surveys regarding this issue, clearly 60% plus said gays should not serve openly. Who ya gonna trust...Gates. What the hell does he do...sit behind a big desk trying to sound progressive.
When this policy gets repealed some people are going to die because of the repeal and some will be hurt...but you will have your repeal and then you will have some hate crimes to bitch about. Put away you damned political correctness for a moment and try to see the damage you are going to cause because you want to feel good about yourself. Your attitude about repealing the policy is totally selfish and extremely dangerous.
As the wife of a retired USAF aviator and veteran of Viet Nam and Desert Storm, I believe repeal is the only right thing to do. I have no question that my husband served with gays though I can not think of anyone we knew about for sure. What I do know is that he served with abusive men; men who cheated on their spouses regularly; men who drank themselves into oblivion on regular basis; men who were not sterling examples of humanity but could fly a fighter jet with the best of them. He also served with many honorable, dedicated, and committed people from his air commando days to his days in the cockpit of an F-4 Phantom. His career spanned the ranks from slick sleeve airman to Major over a 25+year period. Not all servicemembers serve with distinction. Some are average; some are below average; some are not suited for the life at all. Most, however, do their jobs well and many do their jobs above and beyond. That would be true of any minority group you name; any ethnic group you name; any religious affiliation you name. That is because it is the mission that counts and their unified purpose at all times is to accomplish the mission. Today's troops come from enlightened generations and don't really know what the fuss is about. They want to know their fellow troops will stand alongside them and do the job and that is ALL that matters. I would suggest that having a gay troop next to you who does his/her job above and beyond is far superior to having a straight troop next to you who is below average. Can that person do the job? That is the only question to be asked and answered. Their personal sexual orientation is irrelevant.
John -- that only works for people of YOUR religion. People of OTHER religions (or NO religions) have a different viewpoint. None are correct. None are incorrect. But I can tell you that even IF, and that's a big IF, the founders of our county (and, btw, women had little to do with it) truly believed "Godly" values, they believed in a religion free country even more. There is one little word you will NOT find in our Constitution -- the law of the land -- and that is "God". There is a reason for that. We are a SECULAR country and our founding fathers intended it to be that way. You know they were quite literate, if they had wanted GOD in the law, they would have written him in!
Jim,
The Bible is open to individual interpretation. Truly if you want to start picking it apart, and finding bits and pieces to support your feelings on the topic, then by all means, you have that right. I will state that if you truly live, verbatim, by the Bible, I can only wonder if you have a child that has ever talked by to you, and if so, are they still living or did you have them stoned to death? Would you sell your daughter? The Bible says that these unspeakable actions are allowable. God said so.
You stated that you served in the military when you were 20 during the Vietnam War era. First, thank you for serving, as I truly respect and support anyone who serves. However, your thoughts are antiquated. You think that by allowing gays to openly serve in the military will get people hurt and killed? Then that would suggest hate crimes. If a person can be filled with that much ignorance and hate for others, then they have no business calling themselves true Christians. You can't have it both ways.
To retired and glad to be. How do you know that the soldiers didn't give their honest opinions for this data. They are already serving in the military, so what's the problem? You probably served along side some gays yourself if you were in the military. I think the reason this needs to be changed is because people like you, for whatever reason are turning these guys in.Otherwise, I'm sure they would continue to serve and not say anything about their sexuality. I have had the honor of being around many gays and lesbians and if they know that you are not gay, they will not bother you. I don't know why people like you think that you are so hot that one can't keep their hands off of you. The problem in the military is not with gays, but straight men raping women.Get over yourself.
I spent 20 years in, including a tour in Iraq. I was, at one time, a company commander, I've been a private, corporal, sergeant, and commissioned officer. Most of my troops assumed I was gay....few knew "for sure" because I wasn't a "flamer" as some may suggest all gays are. I was highly respected, to the point that when I retired and they threw a big drunk bash for me many tried to get me to remain in the service. I made a point of those I respected, telling them personally that they'd been serving with a gay man for many years. Most told me that they knew or suspected. Those that don't want to serve with homosexuals can gladly find themselves a spot in the soup kitchen line....with unemployment as high as it is they likely won't find a job that provides housing, medical, food, etc. in the civilian world. Have at it and let us serve proudly....as I did for 20 years!
No Truth you twist the truth to try and win, but stealing was one of the 10 commandments, homosexuality is not. I guess what I'm trying to say is you should eat lobster and pork proudly. Some how you have decided that you get to pick and choose which of Gods laws everyone else must obey, sorry it doesn't work that way.
Jim, The Bible actually states, "thou shall not רצח". It is that verb 'רצח' that causes all the problems. You see, the Bible wasn't written by a bunch of white guys rapping in olde English. I am not a Biblical scholar like you are, but if you do a little research, the verb 'רצח' can mean murder, kill, break, or just generally hurt.
Many sects of Christianity strongly believe in 'thou shall not KILL'. Really who are you to say what is right.
Of course the point I was trying to make was that the concept of a military is not what Jesus had in mind. So the military isn't a particularily religious institution (at least not from a New Testament view point). So if it is not religious then it must be secular. If it is secular then keep your freaking religion out of the decision making process.
Seascum...you are the moron that brought religion into the debate with your idiotic notions about what the Bible says. If you cannot back up your biblical claims stay the hell away from the Bible. If you don't want religion talked about then don't start the discussion...geez... isn't that a no brainer.
For the rest of you that don't like my comments go ahead and get dadt repealed...but please don't bitch when it goes badly. And yes you are a moron if you think repeal is going to be bells and flowers. You are narrow in your scope of thinking and have absolutely no understanding of the human experience. I guess that is because you spend way to much time building that Tower to Babble....oops...there I go again getting religious on you seascum. The Bible is quite clear...there is a season to kill. The commandment you refer to is meant to apply to the killing of an innocent person. You really need to study the Christian Bible long before you pretend to be an expert and start injecting religion into the discussion.
Retired,
I respectfully disagree, but I'd like to get an honest military opinion.
The issue here is not that gays are serving, the issue is that they're not "openly" gay while serving. So am I right in assuming that when "DADT" ends, the only thing that will change is that you know who is and who is not?
And that the change in policy wont require them to be openly gay, so there will, presumably, still be "secret" gays?
So, I'm curious, and I'm genuinely asking this, not being a smart-alec, what will change?
@ soldier's wife-2746365
Other "abomination before God" - Eating shrimp, lobster, clams, etc. is abomination. Wearing garments made of wool and linen woven together is also an abomination. The list of silly, stupid things that are abominations to the Lord can easily be pick from the bible, so your biblical laws that you seem to use for your bigotry fails. Just be honest, you don't like gay people and you don't want them to have the same rights and dignity as you. When you finally do admit that your view of homosexuals comes from your hatred of them, you won't need to use irrational arguments from the bible and you can simply be the bigoted, hateful person that you are.
Retired and glad to be---You needed to retire. You sir are not the only retired vet. So, do not act as if YOU have a special insight into military matters. This lunacy is nothing but political theater by the republicans. It keeps you knuckle draggers happy. I served with several whom I would guess were homosexual and they did their job just as any other soldier. So do not, say again, do not present your time in as fact. Its is only YOUR personal opinion.
leysin,
Nice response!
Jim, I didn't bring up religion, 'a soldier's wife' did (if you are going to comment on a string you should read what has been said before). I would gladly never bring religion up again in secular matters, but alas debates like this rage on.
As for me being a 'moron' (was that in general or just biblical matters?), I think my little demonstation of how one little Hebrew word can have several means was valid. Of course if one word can have several meaning can you imagine that the meaning of entire verses or even books of the Bilble have been twisted and changed through numerous translations.
You people are stupid if you say that just becasue they are gay does not mean they will look at others in the showers. Thats like saying if you put a male in the female showers he wouldn't look at them. If you are so sure of this put it to the test. Take your daughters and make them take showers with straight men and see how comfortable you and them are with the situation.
Seascum...here is a clue...if you don't want anyone to comment on your religious comment don't make a religious comment and then blame everyone else for bringing religion into the debate after they make a religious comment on your religious comment...oh yeah...and don't blame the op for dragging religion into the debate when you are the one that wants to keep it alive by making a religious comment on the ops religious comment. You may not...no matter how badly you want it...have it both ways.
Brandon...most of the posters on this article must be neutered because they have no understanding of human sexuality. Boys look at girls...girls look at boys...homosexual boys look at boys and lesbians look at girls. I really do not understand what it is that these people don't understand about homosexual behavior.
WOW Kalytrya way to show your respect!!! So based on your response I'm pretty confident that you're a racist pig. Based on your south remark, I can say people of Detroit are uneducated, stealing, murdering, want a hand out, give me, people right? Maybe I'm wrong, just trying to understand the younger generation's way of thinking. I would hope you're not the poster child of your generation. Like retired, I'm also retired and only 42, so I guess that makes me out of touch too.....
He served for you to have an opinion and you turn around and say that jibberish. Disagree to disagree, you don't need to attack.
Jim,
I have an idea. If you and Brandon don't like the collective thoughts on this post, then you two are more than welcome to "get off"....... together........pun absolutely intended.
ha. I'm sorry I didn't know this was a discussion for everyone who had the same opinion. How about you learn what a debate is and understand that not everyone sees things the way you do. Maybe your the close minded one.
I believe repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy will close the door on those who would use it as an excuse to avoid being drafted after we invade Iran and or N. Korea.
Â
Great point. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, never should have become an issue in the first place. Repealing it just makes it go away.
Are soldiers, men and women, who are in combat, afraid the person next to them could be homosexual and will want sex rather than shooting back at the enemy? Guys who are in the service and stationed in some other country have no problem having sexual relations with prostitutes. The children that are born because of this indiscriminate action are just considered another casualty of war.
You so called 'straight' people are the last ones to criticize or condemn anyone.
YAMAHAMATT You have the wrong party in mind. Democratic presidents do not like to invade other countries for no reason. You are thinking of a republican president. They are the ones that like to kill people.
Yeah,
I have my lawn chair ready,.
When all of the young libbies are in the streets rioting, protesting the universal draft, I want to be sure iIget there early and get a good spot, that is going to be so much fun.
It will be fun to think of a lot of the women posting , being drafted and getting to experience this first hand.
Linda,
What about the Independents? That's a pretty bold statement there, I didn't know all Republicans like to kill? Am I safe to say that Democrats are scared and hide and Rupublicans stay and fight?
John,
I'll bring mine too and a cooler of beer. I'll bring cans, I don't want anyone get hurt if a bottle is thrown and being blamed for attempt of murder.
How about that Bradley Manning? Gay soldier. Traitor. This worthless rump ranger should be tried and executed. Or, at the least, have all his Cher videos taken away. If you people are going to use various examples of translators being kicked out of the army. Isn't it only fair that this POS also be sen as an example of gays in the military?
By the way, you people must be really confused over this whole Wikileaks thing. You LIKE the idea of harming America, but only when Bush was president. With Obama in office, you are suddenly outraged that someone would do this. If this slimy Eurotrash had done this 5 years ago, you pathetic cretins would be hailing him as a hero. I hate all enemies of America no matter WHO is in office. And this POS needs to be disappeared, along with that butt burglar Bradley Manning.
Eurotrash? He's from Australia. Be carefull, you're ignorance is showing.
Poor confused Farley -- please ignore him. His comments are of absolutely no value as he doesn't even know basic facts that are available with the most cursory glance at the Internet. Julian Assange is from Australia! To the geographically challenged Farley, Australia is in a different HEMISPHERE from Europe.
CU Farley - Bradley Manning should be punished just like anyone who commits a crime. However, let's not forget he is not the first to do tratorist acts and not all of those people were gay. However, we should use you as a poster boy for someone no one should have to deal with. And, for the Wiki leaks - I would have been just as incensed if it had happened when Bush was President. It is a treat to our country and should be treated as such you moron.
RE: CU Farley's comment. I cannot believe how bigoted and ignorant your thinking is on this matter. The issue of Bradley Manning has nothing to do with being gay; this is NOT about gays in the military, it is about Bradley Manning in the military. If we follow your line of reasoning, then if Manning had been Jewish, left handed, native American or a former garbage truck driver it would be about all of these issues: "an example of [Jews] in the military," etc. Grow up and start acting like an adult.
I would honestly take you seriously if you didn't come across as an uneducated; disrespectful; immature and just plain vulgar individual.
You make decent points, but you sound like a twelve year old.
You need to understand that not all gays are out to ''harm our country". In fact, not letting them fight is harming us even more.
By showing intolerant behavior such as this, we are alienating an entire community from a nation that is supposed to be welcome to everyone, but obviously we're okay with that as long as we're keeping our precious soldiers from being "raped in a shower".
You people make an army with open gays sound more like a prison.
I'm disgusted and ashamed of people like you, because you are the ones that people in other countries stereotype all Americans as being like.
Farely,
People like you make me vomit in my mouth a little. My teenage boys have more tolerance and kindness in their little finger, than you have in your entire body.
How about all the officers, noncoms who rape the female service members? Harrass them? How many gays or lesbians have been charged with rape or harrassment or unwanted advances to others in the military? Haven't seen any stories on that, and you know darned well that McNasty would have those numbers at his fingertips (if he could find his hands) when ranting and raving against repeal of DADT.
Even oldsters like me (73) see that repeal of DADT is right. It is not only younger people who are in support of the repeal - anyone who lived through a bunch of wars, starting with WWII, knows that discrimination of blacks and women in the military was wrong and now see this as wrong, too.
Thank you, Utahreb....
People keep saying that not wanting gays in the military is intolerant. Just like you have the right to be gay I have the right to think that it is wrong. And for all you people who say you are born gay (a load of bs) they say child molesters have mental issues also. Should I be tolerant of them too?
Utah just so you know there are numerous cases about same sex harassment and assaults in Iraq and Afghan.
No one is ever saying you have to agree with homosexuality. That's not what this is about. You have every right not to. I imagine there are people who don't agree with all that you do and they have that right as well.
The point is, unless what you are doing HURTS someone else, it's no one's business but yours. All repealing DADT will do is level the playing field -- right now, a person who is gay in the military does not have the same rights as a person who is not gay in the military. It's a pretty simple concept.
If you are "hit on" by a homosexual person you do the same as a soldier who is "hit on" by a heterosexual person. It's reported as a violation of the UCMJ. The rules are already there. Otherwise -- live and let live.
Yes you report it to your command and they handle it and at the same time you still end up naked around that person. Once again who told women to get over themselves when sexual harrasment was a major issue back in the day. No on so why does everyone keep saying get over it and just stop worrying about it. If the country is so enraged about airport scanners seeing an crappy digital version of you why is this not a valid argument. I do not want to worry about some guy checking me out in the shower. That is MY right as a human being. So you do have the right to be gay, but that right ends when it starts to impede on my rights.
But Brandon, the gay soldiers/sailors are ALREADY in that shower! So your "argument" is invalid.
The only difference without DADT they don't have to hide the fact they are gay. Think about it this way, if you know someone is gay, avoid them. You're forewarned!
I think there was probably a gay soldier in the boat with George Washington and more than likely there were gay acters with Ronald Reagan acting in war movies.
Maybe so. But they were in the closet. They weren't out prancing around and declaring how "fabulous the colonel looks in his dress blues."
LIberals have been tearing down every institution that made America great for the last 4 decades. For God's sake, leave the military alone. Haven't you people already done enough damage to our society with your ridiculous "progressivism"? Now you want to intentionally damage the morale and fighting cohesion of our fighting forces.
There is actually some credible evidence that Baron von Steuben might have been a homosexual -- stemming from his release from the Prussian Army and continuing through with his relationships with his aides.
To Farley - sounds to me like you have no more experience than being a keyboard "warrior" and you are pretty darn clueless in American History.
I don't think all gay people will be "prancing around" and trying to have sex with men. That's kind of like saying all muslims are terrorists, or all Christians are hypocrites. And don't gay men already shower with men in the military?
Remember, there was once a time when women were not allowed in the military, but then it turned out that not all were worthless sacks of crap who belonged at home in the kitchen...
I don't see how hiding who you are and lying on a daily basis is going to add to the cohesion of any group. Stop stereotyping people to "make a point". These people that you want to distance yourself from are human beings and are willingly putting themselves in harms way to protect our country. They deserve as much respect as any other person serving in the military.
CU Farley, how about growing some thumbs and discovering fire. I can tell you've never served in the military, the JCMJ has rules in place that govern everything from conduct to Public displays. So get over your Homophobic self.
There was a gay soldier in those movies, Ronny wasn't called "the gipper" for nothing ;)
Thank you CU. Leave the miliatary alone. Only 1% of this country actually has the guts to stand up and defend this country, but everyone wants to tell us how to run it. If you want a say in how things are run stop being so selfish and serve your country. If you want help us with something how about stopping them from messing with our pay every time the dems take over. A 3 year price freeze because the deficit is too high. That wasn't the problem a year ago when we were spending money like it was going out of style. And messing with our retirement benefits. Out of the 1% that serve only about 25 percent actually retire and you are telling me that 99.75% of the country can't pull together to support those who gave up so much for their countries. If you want to support your military how about starting with the stuff that actually matters and not worrying if someone can tell me about their sexual orientation (that shouldn't even be brought up in a professional enviorment anyways)
UR,
Are you referring "rules" as "laws" when it comes to the UCMJ? Either way what CU stated has nothing to do with the UCMJ. It's is opinion, which now is a crime in Liberal's eyes if you disagree with them.
Yes UR you are correct but I can tell you never served because I have never in all my years of service seen anyone get in trouble for kissing or hugging their spouses. So the rule is there but do you think a commander is going to discipline his soldier for showing affection before a deployment. And if it is repealed should I have to expose my children to that if a same-sex couple started doing the same thing. And to answer your next comment. Yes I do believe it's wrong, but I serve so you can make that choice and just like I respect mine to not think its ok and expose my children to it.
Bigotry against any group is hardly the "honor & integrity" the military speaks of and represents. Repealing DADT is a civil rights issue. We all are just going to have to ignore our personal biases (and we all have them) and move forward. Apparently we'll be dragging the GOP forward kicking and screaming. Do they even realize how narrow minded and hateful they appear (do ya, John McCain)?
I agree a 100% with the Indie lady from Denver! This really needs to be addressed in our country. As for McCain, what would he do if one of his children were gay? Would he be preaching the same bigotry as he is now? I think they should have the same rights as any other individual to fight for their country!
Woman in Kansas - John McCain has lost his place. He used to stand for something - now he stands for anything and everything that he believes will get him a vote. He has lost his honor, his integrity, everything. He has become a pathetic little man. To Woman in Kansas and Indie Woman - great posts.
DRAGGING The GOP forward kicking and screaming?????
Do you liberals even remember that there was an election on Nov, the 2nd?
What do you folks do, simply put unpleasant memories in tinfoil and throw them away?
It seems to me, that you had better worry about getting in sync with the rest of the country, or you will become totally irrelevant.
Repealing DADT, will lower the quality of the military, however it seems that homsexuals and liberals are will to see that happen, so that homsexuals can announce that they are homosexuals.
Very well fair is fair, repeal Dadt, but any one who enlisted in a volunyary military should be allowed to leave, without prejudice.
They can be retained for say six months to allow the draft to be reinstated and train the influx of draftees
It wont be all bad, a mandatory two year draft, for all young men and women, will give them a new perspective on the military and acquaint them with why so many of the military oppose this.
John - not everyone who believes that DADT should be repealed is a liberal. And, liberals have brought a great deal of good to this country. I have yet to see anything the far right offers as good - just a throwback to ignorance and intollerance. But, you seem very comfortable with both of those.
Regardless of the election results, our elected officials should represent the will of the majority. The majority spoke and said they don't have a problem with gays openly serving in the military so why are we wasting time discussing this?
John, you don't get to decide what rules you want to follow in the military; if you don't like 'em you don't get to leave. If DADT goes away, the homophobes will have sit out the remainder of their enlistment.
The election was not about this DADT, in 2 years the GOP will go to if they don't get off their butts, shut their mouth, and GET SOMETHING DONE. DADT is done - if not in congress then in the courts.
The GOP has anointed themselves the new Reich and plan to exterminate any party or individual who dares question their motives.
McNasty has trouble remembering what he said from one day to the next. And you expect him to be reasonable and sensible? About as much chance of finding ocean-front property in UT.
Well it seems that fair is only fair, when it is something the libs/homosexuals want.
You want to repeal DADT because it would be fair to homosexuals.
You don't want to allow people who volunteered into the all voluntary military, to leave without prejudice, when one of the basis premises of the military is changed.
It seems that fair is a negoitable thing with liberals and homosexuals.
I'm looking forward to universal draft again, I can almost see the libbies in the streets breaking windows and setting fires, now.
This is not a civil rights issue. If you choose to be a certain way don't try to make everyone accept it as ok. If you have the right to choose to be gay I have the right to choose my head and tell my kids its ok.
Senator Alexander with all due respect to your position in the government.Your statement about doing your job that the people sent you to do is not just say NO to everything that comes before you. This is about the men and women that allows you to live like you do. Vote yes on repealing DADT be a leader not a follower unless you follow Jesus. thank you Quit labeling our PATRIOTS as being wrong in their chooses in their life.
MGBAKYSA
I voted for Senator Alexander, he is doing exactly, what we elected him to do, you don't like it, move to TN and register to vote.
If Obama favors it, we expect to just vote "NO".
The one thing we have learned in the last two years is that if Obama favors it, itwill be bad for the majority of the country.
You are a dam idiot
DIONX----- Well, you certainly skewered me right through the heart with that rapier like riposte.
Let me guesss, you write "RAP" songs for a living, correct?
I guess John is against lower taxes, more jobs, peace treaties and more help for the troops.
If you hate america so much you can always leave.
Are you sick of the GOP yet???
Don't worry, it's going to get much worse...
I cant wait! Does anyone recall that every civil rights movement that came about in this country was brought about by the republican party? Now we have a half black president and a democratic party that panders to minorities so everyone forgets that. Go GOP!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I could care less about gays in the military. My wife has gay friends and they are some pretty good people. If they want DADT repealed, go for it.
That's what I'm afraid of
 McCain is probably just still sore from the rump pounding he recieved at the POW camp. he needs to get over it.
Canadian, British and Australian forces (all of whom have had soldiers killed in Afghanistan) have out of the closet gays in their military. Recent interviews with their commanders indicated absolutely no problems. Not sure why this is such a big deal in the US military? Probably because politicians, evangelicals and the media have made it a big deal.
McCain is just laughable... Maverick...?!??! ROFLMFAO
THANK GOD he is not the president of this country.
I have a suggestion. Put all the queers in the same unit and call them the garmy or the garines or the gayvee. Thank God they can't reproduce..........................
I hope to God that you can't reproduce.
Drano - what a very small, little person you are. Pathetic!
What about blacks and women. 60 years ago you were someone who wanted blacks to stay out of the military, 30 years ago you want women out of combat roles, today gays. I understand people always think (NIMBY) not in my back yard (no pun intended) but what do you think will happen? a gay service member will look or fantasize another service member. I'm not gay but i am smart enough to realize there have ALWAYS been gays in the military??? let it go...anybody who is willing to VOLUNTEER to serve their and potentially die deserves to live their life w/out regret.
As we hope that you are incapable of reproduction as well.
Actually, they can reproduce.
John, Just because someone chooses to be with a same sex partner does not mean that they cannot have children. I think your statement shows what a narrow minded bigot you are.
Wake up!!! We are everywhere. We are here to stay (and yes, I am openly gay and proud, partnered for 15 years in a monogamous relationship).
You need to think again, do you not know about the "gayby"? We are reproducing and adopting weather bigots want us to or not.
will the gay member receive family separation allowance? in theory it is only fair they should, but single members won't approve of extra pay for doing the same job, and it will be yet another point of resentment no matter how it comes out.
Jon, there has ALWAYS been resentment about married personnel receiving more money for the same job -- even back in the 1970-80's and I'm sure well before that. Single soldiers take up the slack for married ones all the time, are afforded less privacy and subjected to more intrusion in their lives. That's a fact of life in the military. There are some improvements now in new barracks being built with single soldiers at least having individual quarters, but it's WAY too long in coming.
I am sorry, but I don't believe that gays belong serving in the military.
Dawn why are you sorry?
What does a person's sexual orientation have anything to do with their loyalty to this nation.
This why the don't ask don't tell policy was implemented. Too many straight men think gay men want to have sex with every man they see.
I am straight and a veteran. I don't care if the men serving next to me like to screw donkeys, as long as they do what needs to be done on the battle field.
I respect your opinion, but wonder when so many others like yourself are going to enlist since you so apologetically object to other able bodied Americans from serving?
Dawn - then you are ignorant. They already serve. They have served well and some have lost their lives. But, you are clearly too ignorant to know that fact.
Dawn, I don't think you understand the issue. Gays ALREADY serve in the military, they always have -- since civilizations started going to war. The only issue here is whether or not they can be dishonorably DISCHARGED from the military because they have to hide the fact they are gay. In most other militaries in the world (including our allies) gays serve openly and have for quite some time.
Agreed! Are all of these "sorry, but" patriots lining up to serve in any capacity other than Bigot-in-Chief? Didn't think so....
I'm sorry, I don't believe in people named Dawn having opinions.
It's not that I have anything against homosexuals. However, it doesn't make good sense to have them actively serving in the military. There are plently of other professions they can enter. They are going to create a lot of animosity among active serving soldiers. I don't think anyone can accurately predict some of the problems that will result from this.
Gays have already been serving in the military since there was a military, haven't you been reading the posts? Not knowing if someone is gay doesn't change whether or not they're gay. Knowing someone's background opens up the situation for
I can't believe that in the United States, where we celebrate our freedom and democracy, we are still trampling on our people's civil rights. I thought that was just stuff I read about in our history books and that we were past that by now. I guess we still have alot of growing up to do.
So, where do we draw the line? Should transexuals also be able to serve?
Get a clue Dawn.
Gays have served in the military and have fought in combat, since humans first started warring.
How can you expect anybody to respect your opinion, when it's based on such ignorance?
Dawn,
Do you really care who is fighting for your rights and freedoms? It's not that I think you are not entitled to your opionion, I am just trying to understand the reasons behind them. Nothing personal, but your posts come across as someone who is very young, uninformed, and a little naive..
So, where do we draw the line? Should transexuals also be able to serve?
Can they pass the physical? Are they intelligent enough? Do they agree to follow the UCMJ?
It's not that I have anything against homosexuals. However.........
Why does a statement like this make me think that Dawn does have something against homosexuals? How about a statement like this...."It's not that I don't have anything against blacks. However they are better suited for work on the plantation". Or, "..........against Hispanics. However, they should all move back to Mexico." Or howabout, "......against homophobic morons. However, they should all move to a rock in the Arctic Ocean and freeze to death".
Lol Seascum,
At least she didn't say, I have a gay friend. Isn't that how it always goes? I am not racist, I have a black friend. It's not that I have anything against homosexuals, I have a gay friend. However........
Still no offers to "enlist" from Dawn...still armchair-quarterbacking and second-guessing the experienced, qualified brass in the Pentagon. You have heard of the Pentagon, haven't you, Dawn? It's that big old building where the REAL decision-making goes on...go on and "Google" it...we'll wait for you and Robert to catch up...
should people who have had a threesome be allowed to serve?
who's business is it?
dawn, how about we draw the line at ability to do the job? why do you need to draw a line? why do you need to have a group of people who can't server based on entirely unrelated concerns.
being gay or trans doesn't influence how well you can perform the jobs the military has. if that were the case you wouldn't need special rules against letting them serve.
we don't keep other minority groups out of the military to accommodate the people who hate them.
What is the world coming to? Two of the most intelligent people on this planet, Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs support and endorse a position, and they are questioned by a moron like McSenile! Yet, the Half-Governor makes a totally idiotic statement on any given day, and her zombie-followers reach for their wallets, eager to throw more cash into her "campaign"...and McSenile is the one who foisted this half-wit on us!
Of course, who wouldn't want to serve with her son, the hero/zero from Wasilla? Give me a qualified soldier of any sexual persuasion over Palin's brat!
Dawn -- the same arguments were made integrating blacks and women into the military. They were specious arguments then ... and they are specious arguments now -- especially considering they are ALREADY SERVING!!!
 I'm so weary of seeing McCain's face on my screen every day. The man has nothing to say of substance about anything.!!!Why doesn't he find a hot Arizona rock to hide under like the other Arizona chamelons? I'm tired of "MY" taxpayer's money supporting this leech on the sytem. He has made a good life for himself living off the government he constantly decries.
Please don't insult chameleons or any other animals by using them to describe McNasty. The man (?) is the poster boy for term limits in Congress. Kerry was described as a "flip-flopper" but that title goes to McNasty with no one close to his "for" and then "against" and cannot be ascribed to anything but his bitterness in defeat. Or maybe senile dementia, Alzheimer's or just plain meanness.
So fuc-in what they are gay, they die just like anyone else in war. I've served in the Marine Corps along side many gay or bi marines and no problem, who cares what they do on their own time. Get over it you Rep. idiots, you are homophobic anyway and wouldn't vote for this if your life depended on it. You find anyway you can to vote against it, no matter how much research is done, it's not enough for you. Most of you never served in the armed forces anyway. Every country have gays in the military except ours, the other coutnries have no problems with it. Law enforcement have gays, no problem, fire service have gays, no problem, and on and on and on. You (the GOP) is so narrow minded, how do you guys sleep at night, I know some of you sleep with other guys!!!! And now your two face about it.
I bet your not nearly as weary of seeing McCain's face as we are of seeing Barack Hussin Obamba's.
If you are going to slander the president at least spell his name correctly. Its "Barack Hussein Obama" you moron!!
Ray T- you are truly ignorant and it shows in your pathetic post.
Amen Robert.... you individuals who don't want gays would not wanted have blacks or women. Any wonder why there will always be racism in the world.
I guess ignorance will always be bliss
one love to all
So sorry, Robert..."were" not (heavy sarcasm)!! Flip the channel back to FAUX news and crack open another breakfast brewski, why don't ya?
surroundedbypalinitesintexassendhelp
Love, Love, Love your screen name. I have friends in Texas that feel the very same. lol
Luvmy2boys, it is frightening to think that my neighbors would vote for such an airhead, but I digress....
ROBERT---- What areally interesting statement, I spent 4 years in the CORPs, I only remember 1 guy,, I suspected was gay.
Is there morre than one Marine Corps?
The military should not be used as a "social experiment laboratory". It is charged with defending our nation, and needs to be structured in such a way as to best accomplish this mission. This is NOT a civil rights issue, it in NOT a RIGHT to "serve" in the military, otherwise flatfooted blind people wouldn't be turned away because it would be considered "discrimination". It's utterly ridiculous the lenghts that this Progressive administration will go to in order to be politically correct. Most male soldiers do not want to have to shower next to a man that would be attracted to them, so why in the world would we make them feel so uncomfortable just so a tiny minority of gay men can come out of the closet???? Fine, let them serve, but NOT openly.
You make an excellent point. I would not want an openly gay queen sharing my foxhole. I would be afraid he was watching my back!
Can you imagine gay lovers on patrol arguing about who is going to hold who's hand while they look for the enemy?
Told-ya-so and Bill - both of you are too ignorant to know anything. Have you not read the posts from men who have actually served our country? None of them have a problem with gays serving openly. Your fear of gays lends itself to the question of why you are sooooo concerned? Little closeted are you???
Bill in Houston- I'm gay- and that is hilarious! :)
Bill that sounds hot....tell me more.
W GOIN----- Uh huh we have read the post, by"people who have already served and are gay".
I served four years, onl remember one, I thoufgt was a homosexual.
I se and talk with 15 to 25 young marine officers on a daily basis.
None of them know anyone that is a known homosexual and of that group, only two of them suspect a person of being a homosexual.
Why do you suppose that group is lying about it?
Do you folks really wonder why no one believes anything you say?
w goin are you serious. I have served and I still serve and I have a big problem with it and so does everyone I know. I was never asked if I thought it should be repealed and neither has anyone I know. You are hurting your cause by spreading false facts. Stick to what you know.
At the turn of the 20th century, the military was not segregated. That great "Progressive" president, Wodrow "KKK" Wilson segregated it. As for bigotry, there is no "right" to join the military. Half the kids in high school are too FAT to join, is that bigotry? No, they are called standards. What this game is about is POWER. The militant homosexuals want to be "in-your-face" flamers, military and national security be damned.
Car J....These people are not "in your face flamers" - if they didn't come out you would never know they were gay. They have volunteered and died in defense of our nation. They deserve respect for their service.
Gays SERVE in the military already... proudly and with honor.
In your face? Militant homosexuals? Whatever, how dare a gay man want to put his life on the line to defend his country. The game may be about power but the power is certainly not in the court of the gay and lesbians who want to serve their country in the military. If gays can not serve their country, if they can not get marrie which results in other limitations straight men and women do not encounter; how much should we cut their taxes to level the playing field? Hey 10% (or whatever the number is) of the populas can not get a "civil" marraige license so; do we cut their taxes 10%? Afterall their taxes pay to employ the people that are issuing the license. Should we really be collecting tax dollars from people to provide a service they can not participate in?
Yeah "Big" John, they are not in your face flamers; YET. Because that can't, they will be removed and it should stay that way.
What the heck is an "in the face Flamer"??? Like all of a sudden they're gonna wear splashy colors instead of camo on the front line? They're gonna try to kiss you, because even though you're SO HETRO, they think that they can change you with their "in the face Flaming"?
HOMOPHOBE.
Carl J - You clearly have no clue. I'm guessing your IQ is in the low double digits. What a stupid post. wane997 -I'm thinking fucia for the front lines....
Carl - not that you are interested in facts, but here are a few for your edification.
In the Revolutionary War, blacks served in SEGREGATED units in the north (and not under arms in the south with a few guerrilla unit exceptions). There were some integrated here and there as military need demanded however.
From 1792-1862 blacks were generally restricted by law from enlisting in the military.
There was a Louisiana of Free Men of Color that participated in the Mexican War -- segregated and an exception.
During the Civil War, blacks were REQUIRED to fight in segregated units, commanded by white officers.
In 1869 Congress made racial segregation official government policy (note: CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENT and NOT even close to Wilson's term!). This remained in effect almost to the end of WWII. At that point, military necessity required the use of black forces next to white forces and then the military was officially desegregated by Truman in 1948.
You can find more here -- but I know you aren't interested in REAL facts, just made up ones to support your bigotry.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm
Carl, you would hate to see any 'militant' homosexuals in the military? Oh the horror.
If and when DADT is repealed, there will be "in your face flamers" that will make sure everyone knows they are gay. They will flaunt it. The same thing happened when women were allowed to start serving combat roles. There will be situations that come up where someone will degrade unit morale by flaunting their lifestyle and there will be those that will degrade unit morale by attacking the openly gay members. It's human nature and think otherwise is delusional.
The real question is, will it effect the overall morale of the armed forces? I believe that we will go through an adjustment period, just like we did with integrating women and blacks. Things are going to happen and it will get plastered all over the news (remember "Tailhook" anyone?), but the majority of us in the service will continue to do our jobs quietly.
I was in the navy when women were put into combat roles and saw the way the military overreacted and subsequently adjusted for it and, depending on when DADT is repealed, I may see the results of it before I retire after 23 years of service. Personally I could give a @!$%# less about your lifestyle as long as it doesn't affect the job you took an oath to do.
John you have no idea what these people will be like if they came out. Please don't assume and try to speak for the masses.
Love the comment are you awake yet. If it is repealed it will take time for people to adjust, but I don't see that happening with no one addressing the living situations. Like you I served my country with honor and I don't care about your sexuality it's your choice. There is a line though. I will not shower with a gay person or live in the close quarters that I know I don't have to explain to an ex-sailor. It would pose the same problems that having men and women together would pose. I was in the mess hall in Iraq a year ago and I remember hearing a lesbian sitting in a group of male soldiers telling them a story about this hot chick that came in to take a shower and how she took her time just so she could see her again when she got out the shower naked. To me that is the major issue. If they address and fix that I would be ok with the repeal. Separate them just like men and women are separated. It only makes sense its the same senerio just tweaked a little.
Chances are you have already showered with gay people and just didn't know it. I know I have (even though I didn't know at the time)
Quarters would be an issue and given the limited amount of space especially on board ship there is no clear solution. (I remember seeing movies that took place in the future, like "star trek" and "starship troopers" and everryone was in the same berthings, I wonder if that'll ever happen.) The reason why men and women are seperated is because there would be less of chance for them to "hook up" after lights out and less instances of sexual harrasment. If you put all the homosexuals in the same berthing you would almost be encouraging it. You would also be telling everyone that gays are different just because of their sexual orientation. Isn't that bigotry?
That lesbian you were talking about isn't any different that the guy who talked about the female shipmate that he went on a date with or hooked up with in some storeroom on the ship. Personally, they need to leave that @!$%# at the brow or in their minds.
Since I'm about done with my time in the service and will not be going back to a ship, I really don't have a "dog in this fight". But I do know that sooner or later DADT will be repealed and those in the service at that time will have to deal with this.
do you have john bnlock's info
Who really cares if gays are in the army, as far as I am concerned it is like baseball players taking steroids, who cares, create jobs and bring down the deficit.
McCain is an embarrassment not only to the GOP but to the species of man. I'll be glad to read his obit. Don't take it personally old man but, what good are you?
RandyNason - Guy you so want to bash because he has a more conservative view point was and still is a great America!!! Even if you disagree with his stance you must respect what he did so that you can get on here and spread your stupid rhetoric (no matter how dumb you are)!!! If he had won the presidency I can guarantee you we would not be in the shape we are now!!! Your post is by far the stupidest one on thus far!!! Go lie down and lick your own nuts for a change!!!
Keith,
How could Randy possibly agree with McCain's stance, when McCain can't even decide what his stance his? He has been so indecisive on this, that he makes my head spin. Speaking of balls, I am forming a search party to help McCain find his. Apparently he lost them somewhere between Palin/DC bound and Az. If he were a true man, he would take a stance and stick to it. A man is only as good as his word....enough said.
We all know this is going to be repealed sooner or later, why are we spending so much time on this? if gays want to be in the military let them, I have served with gays and they did their job.
Gays can serve in the military.
Yes, you are correct, gays can serve in the military - until there is evidence of their homosexuality.
That's the other half of "don't ask don't tell" - this was implemented because homosexual soldiers that outed themselves used to be removed from the service, or barred from enlistment. In an effort to decrease the idiocy, the 'don't ask don't tell' was implemented; even if asked, you are not required to tell. If asked you can use the chain of command to correct the situation.
I think the don't ask don't tell is the safest route for homosexuals in the military. The members of the "let gays in the military" groups that I have seen, are not lower enlisted soldiers.
I think it should be the soldier's choice. If they want others to know they are homosexual, it should be their choice to let it out. However be warned, not ever soldier will be accepting of homosexuals in their squad or platoon.