Live-blogging the DADT hearings, Day Two

12:21: We've just adjourned. Thanks for following along for the last two days. And keep visiting First Read often for updates on all the latest news in politics.

12:16: McCain chuckles at the conclusion of this 3 hour-plus hearing, "thanks for listening." Notes other problems apart from DADT that Republicans have with the authorization bill.

12:12: "We've got to find a way to get it done before we leave here," Lieberman says of the underlying Defense Authorization bill to which DADT repeal is attached.

12:11: Lieberman cites a number he also mentioned yesterday: Only 15 percent of gay and lesbian servicemembers say that they would want their sexual orientation known. He doesn't believe that there will be a great "outing."

12:10: Lieberman, who differs with his frequent ally John McCain on this issue, says that Congress is capable of addressing jobs as well as DADT at the same time. "We can do both," he says.

12:04: Noting his recent re-election campaign, McCain says none of his constituents have pleaded with him to get to work on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He also mentions this morning's unemployment numbers.

"We should not be questioning anybody's integrity or motives," McCain says, adding that he disagrees with Roughead and Cartwright but that he "respects" their opinion. He says the panel's candor restores his faith in the "professionalism" of military leadership. He reiterates his request for further hearings to hear more from active troops.

"Our economy is in the tank and the American people want that issue addressed," says McCain.

"To somehow believe that this is a compelling issue at a time when we are in two wars ... we should not be exercising a rush to judgment."

He says he will not vote for this to move forward and that he does not think that a majority of his colleagues will either.

12:03: McCain is back, opens with a wry remark about how the chiefs must have enjoyed their "lecture on the legislative process here in the United States Senate."

11:58: Levin presses Schwartz on his suggestion that implementation be delayed: To delay those things to 2012 is "arbitrary," Levin says.

Address DADT during the lame duck "wasn't our timing" Levin says, noting that legislation has been in front of the committee for months. "We didn't set the time for the report" either, he adds.

11:55: Levin again quotes the "big, mean, kills lots of bad guys" anecdote. Always gets a little giggle from the audience.

11:51: Brown says that if the courts act to repeal the policy first: "It would be exceedingly disruptive to the force." But he urges the chiefs to insist to Gates and the other signers of certification (if there is legislation passed by Congress) that their concerns are addressed.

Casey: "I'm very comfortable that we have access" to Gates, as he has said several times today.

11:48: Brown says the only issue that is "important in my mind, when we're fighting two wars, is the safety and security" of the men and women serving abroad.

"If in fact we do move forward with this point ... I'm hopeful that when or if this does get repealed that you will be given the proper respect and input with the three signers who are going to certify, to let them know what your concerns are."

11:47: From Brown's bio:

Senator Brown is a 30-year member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard and currently holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps.

11:45: Brown argues that, as a member of the military, he understands this issue better than many lawmakers on the Hill who have not served in uniform.

He asks why the survey was voluntary. He says that during his service, surveys were mandatory.

Casey: "I honestly don't know why they chose to do it the way they did it."

11:45: Sen. Scott Brown is now up.

11:41: Hagan mentions Mullen's argument that war facilitates change rather than hinders it.

"Frankly, I think that's a bit of a stretch," Casey responds.

11:38: Would it be preferable for Congress to repeal the law before the courts address this, Kagan asks. That's the argument that's been made by Gates and Mullen.

Service chiefs say that the ambiguity of the fluctuating court decisions and injunctions in the past must be clarified.

11:36: Hagan asks Casey if there's a timetable for implementation with which he's comfortable. He declines to name a time period.

"It would be a matter of months" at least in the case of the Navy, Roughead says.

11:34: Sen. Hagan of North Carolina is up. Key senators on the GOP side from whom we have not heard: Collins, Brown, and Graham. Brown is in the room, no sign of the other two.

11:30: Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is speaking about an ACLU case about the policy that was not appealed. He slams Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan "whose personal views on this were so well known" before her confirmation hearing -- which Sessions led for the GOP side earlier this year.

11:26: Republican Sen. Sessions up now. He's using one of his questions to ask Schwartz about an issue involving the disclosure of competitive procurement information about a tanker.

11:24: Yesterday's discussion centered around the methodology of the Pentagon survey and the question of 'whether' the ban should be repealed. Today's is more focused on 'when' the best time to repeal and implement the changes might be.

11:21: Manchin also asks about the impact of a repeal on military chaplains. They appear to agree that the impact would be "modest" and that each chaplain has a mandate to minister to the entire flock.

11:19: Manchin asks about budget issues for additional benefits offered: "Is this going to be a cost-effective measure?"

11:18: New Sen. Manchin of West Virginia up. Yesterday he joked that he's "the new kid on the block."

11:11: Wicker opposes repeal, but he appears to agree with Gates in saying that there will be high levels of intense continued combat in the future: "We're always going to be asking that kind of fighting man to be operating under those kinds of conditions."

Amos: "This is a bad time, senator."

11:07: Sen. Wicker up now. Wicker says addressing the ban now, during a time of war, is akin to last year's discussion of health care reform while unemployment was at crippling highs.

11:05: Breaking now: As the nation's military top brass discusses the impact of policy on combat troops, President Barack Obama arrives in Afghanistan for an unannounced visit to U.S. forces there.

11:01: Sen. Udall up for questions now.

11:00: Thune: "I think I know where all this is headed" he says during the conclusion of his questions.

10:55: The chiefs have reiterated that they believe that they have an open line of communication to Gates, and they have not advocated to be included in the list of officials who must certify legislative wording of repeal.

10:53: Thune: "How should we as members of Congress weigh the fact that there is not consensus" between each branch of the military?

Casey: "I think you should be grateful for that ... I think we'll get a better decision out of it."

10:52: Republican Sen. Thune now up for questions.

10:45: Webb asks if any of the service chiefs believe that any gay or lesbian servicemembers currently serving without violating standards of conduct should leave the service. None say yes.

So, if we keep the policy as it is now, Webb asks, "What is it we should be doing when [someone serving] are 15 years into their service and they want to be able to live an honest and open lifestyle?"

Casey: "Senator, we'll follow the law."

10:43: Sen. Webb up next. He initially voted against moving forward on DADT legislation before the Pentagon report was released, but yesterday he praised the report's writers and said the Working Group on the issue had done "excellent" work.

10:39: Chambliss asks Casey and Amos if repeal would have a positive or negative impact on the readiness of troops.

Casey says "It would increase the risk on the safety of our troops," as he said in his opening statement.

Amos: "I think it would absolutely have an impact on the combat forces" although he does not want to say the same of the non-combat Marines.

10:38: Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia next up for questions.

10:36: "In terms of the policy, change is coming," Reed says.

10:35: Amos notes that rigorous Marine Corps recruiting "tends to winnow out" much of the American population.

10:33: Cartwright: "Leadership is going to be the determinative factor" in implementation.

10:32: Casey points out that there's a difference between "thinking someone is gay or lesbian and knowing it." Says that distinction is worth considering when viewing survey results.

10:30: Sen. Jack Reed next up to ask questions.

10:23: Inhofe brings up the opinion -- voiced most strongly by McCain -- that the survey should have included a more direct question about whether or not the policy should be repealed. Both Casey and Amos side with Gates, that a "referendum" would not have made sense.

Casey: "I believe the way the survey was executed gave us sufficient information to make our judgment.'

Amos: "I don't think we needed a referendum-type question on it."

But Amos attributes the under-30% response rate to "a sense of inevitability" about the results.

10:20: Next up: Sen. Inhofe. He cites data that a sizable portion of combat forces say they would consider leaving the force earlier than planned if the ban is repealed.

Casey notes that those numbers are probably overstated. Amos agrees.

10:17: Lieberman asks whether each of the chiefs has felt comfortable speaking openly about his views with Gates. They say that they have.

10:16: Lieberman notes that the six witnesses appear to agree that the law will and should eventually be repealed, but the question at hand is whether that should be done immediately or later, at a time when the nation is not as heavily engaged in combat.

10:14: Amos says his "suspicions are that the law will be repealed" but "I just ask for the opportunity to do that with with my forces when they're not singularly focused on combat."

"This is serious business for them."

10:11: Lieberman next up.

10:10: McCain just voiced agreement with Casey and Schwartz that the policy should eventually be changed. Just not now.

10:09: McCain asks the same of Schwartz. The Air Force chief responds that it would not "be prudent" at this time to change the law but that it should eventually be repealed.

10:07: Casey responds to McCain's direct question about his views on repeal : "I believe that the law should be repealed eventually."

"I would not recommend going forward at this time given what the Army has on its plate," he said.

10:06: McCain now up for questions. He says he wants to hear what the theater commanders have to say on this issue as well.

10:04: Amos's last response addresses the same question posed by Gates yesterday. But Gates was pessimistic that such a less combative time would be coming to the nation's military anytime soon.

“If not now, when? When we’re out of Afghanistan?” Gates asked yesterday. “I don’t see the world getting to be a safer, easier place to live in, where our troops are necessarily under less stress.”

10:02: Amos says he has thought about the question of "if not now, when?" He says he would prefer implementation during "a time when our Marines are no longer focused on combat."

"My recommendation would be that it begins when our singular focus is not on combat operations," Amos said. At that time, he said, he would be comfortable with repeal.

10:01: Casey just reiterated the point below but said that he "worries about the implications" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

9:58: The service chiefs may disagree on whether or not the ban should be repealed, but one thing they agree on: If Congress acts, their leaders are capable of implementing the ban and their forces are disciplined enough to carry out the law.

9:52: Levin asks each member if they have consulted allies in other countries about integration in their own forces. Casey said that commanders of other countries' military forces said that implementation of gay and lesbian integration went smoothly and that it should be done as simply as possible.

Roughead notes that in other countries, "there was broad national consensus before the law was repealed." But repeak was exceptionally smooth in those countries, he said. It was "a non-event," he reports.

9:48: Cartwright quotes the same anecdote from the report mentioned by Sen. Collins of Maine yesterday.

"As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay."

9:47: On to questions. There will be 7 minute rounds.

9:43: Adm. Robert Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard, signaled that he believes repeal would "remove a significant barrier" to Guardsmen already serving, who should not have to "compromise our core values of Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty."

But he warns that implementation "will not be achieved without encountering significant challenges along the course ahead."

9:39: Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz: "It is difficult for me ... to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time."

He recommends a deferral of implementation of any changes until 2012.

But he also echoes Gates's point that legislative action is "far more preferable to a decision by the courts."

9:36: Amos emphasizes that Marines would faithfully support the law if Congress changes it. He says the military is capable of implementing repeal.

But, he concludes: "Based on what I know about the very tough fight on the ground in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time."

9:34: Now, Amos. "Of particular concern to me is that roughly 56% of combat arms Marines voiced negative concerns ... What the survey did not identify is the risk to the ranks within the combat arms communities."

"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan."

9:30: Adm. Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, supports repeal. He notes that a "sizeable minority" of Navy members think that repeal would have negative effects -- 24 percent. "I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communication, training and education, and clear and concise standards of conduct. While we will engage all Sailors, regardless of their points of view, it is this minority upon which our leaders should focus."

He concludes by saying: "I assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the Navy to be low." He recommends repeal.

9:28: But, Casey adds, the discipline of the force and the seasoning of the military leaders would allow a controlled implementation. "We could could implement repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness and long-term health of the force."

9:26: Next, Gen. Casey, the Army Chief of Staff. "Implementation of repeal of DADT in the near term will 1) add another level of stress to an already stretched force; 2) be more difficult in combat arms; and 3) be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests."

9:25: Here's a quick bio of Cartwright, the nation's second highest ranking military officer.

9:22: Gen. Cartwright, first up with an opening statement, offers praise for the Pentagon survey group. He supports repeal.

In his remarks, he echoes the concern of Gates and other Pentagon officials that, without quick legislative action, the courts will overturn the policy first and disrupt an orderly implementation of repeal.

9:20: McCain also took a shot at critics who say that he has cherry-picked favorable information about the existing policy.

Those who say he has not followed through on pledges to listen to the input of a wide variety of military officials are "disregarding the record," he said.

9:14: McCain says he "appreciated hearing from" Mullen and Gates yesterday and that their views "deserve serious consideration."

But he adds of the service chiefs, "it's their responsibility to recruit and retain the best personnel possible" for their military branches. They must make sure their units are "ready and able to win the nation's wars," McCain says, so the views of the service chiefs are "especially relevant to the current debate."

9:10: Levin disagrees with McCain that the service chiefs' input should be considered with greater weight than that of Gates and Mullen. Here's what he said earlier this week to NBC:

At the end of the day, the decision, in terms of any military decisions, are usually left to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs after consultation with the [service] chiefs.

9:07: Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman, tells the chiefs in his opening statement that the committee "wants to hear from each of you whether you are satisfied by [the assurances] of the Secretary of Defense" that he would not certify a repeal of the ban unless risks are eliminated to every possible extent. "And we want to know whether you were adequately consulted by the working group."

9:05: We're about to get underway. The service chiefs are seated and the photographers are snapping their opening shots.

8:54: Some background for today: Data from the newly-released Pentagon report on the subject found that respondents from the Marine Corps voiced the strongest concerns about gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Yesterday, Gates and Mullen argued that those concerns, while valid, could be addressed by training and exposure; many combat force troops, they said, have simply never worked with open gays and lesbians before.

Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the panel, has dismissed the study's overall findings, saying that the survey of servicemembers failed to directly ask them 'whether' the policy should be changed, only 'how' it should be implemented. He has also largely dismissed the advice of Gates and Mullen, saying that they are less connected with the daily leadership of troops than the service chiefs who will testify today.

8:51: Here's what Amos, the Marine Corps leader, recently said about a potential repeal:

There's risk involved; I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk," Gen. James Amos said. "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That's what the country pays its Marines to do."

"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," he said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness."

8:40 a.m. ET: Good morning from Dirksen Senate Office Builing. First Read is here for the second day of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays and lesbians.

Yesterday, senators heard from military officials who are generally supportive of a repeal of the policy -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen -- as well as from the authors of a new report that found little overall risk to the Armed Forces if the ban is repealed.

Today, they will hear from the heads of each service branch. Some, most importantly the Commandant of the Marine Corps, have expressed reservations about the effect that repeal would have on military operations.

The witnesses are: Gen. James E. Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey; Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps; Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz; and Adm. Robert Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard.

The hearing will be underway at 9 a.m. ET, so visit this site for frequent updates about the proceedings.

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2

Senator Brown may have served in the military, but, by his comments and questions, certainly does not appear to have benefited from the experience.

    Reply#30 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 11:50 AM EST

    Hey McCain! Get off my lawn!!

    • 1 vote
    Reply#31 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:05 PM EST

    Yes Sherry Johnson, we are all different. In a perfect world those differences wouldn't matter, but since we aren't worlds unto ourselves, we must interact with others.

    We all restrict our activites in some ways to conform to the society/group rules to which we want to belong. We do that so that we can "work together." As an individual you have the right to move away from a group you don't agree with. Within the miliary that is largely restricted. You are assigned to a group (unit/squadron/platoon/etc) and you eat, sleep, work with that group. If you choose to reject it, the group will reject you. It works the same in or out of the military. The difference is the military MUST work as a team to achieve their mission. This is why the military is not for everyone and why so many don't make it past basic training--it just isn't their group.

    The military is a unique animal that congress as acknowledged in the past and allowed curtailment of many personal liberties that would outrage most civilians. Examples: you can't quit--the contract is binding unless the military chooses to release you--Stop Loss proved that point by requiring people to continue to serve beyond the end of their contract. You must submit to drug testing or they will put you in jail. Urinalysis testing is a fact of life. You can't reveal classified information--the WILL put you in jail for a long time. The Wikileaks contributor is discovering that.

    Bottom line. The military is more different than most who have never served perceive. However, it is different for a reason--mostly justified.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#32 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:06 PM EST

    Sherry. Realized I didn't address your point. Yes, it is a big waste of time and money, but there is a political purpose. The public needs to believe that the DADT decision (which ever way it goes) was examined by our government and military and a properly considered position taken. It is messy because each side wants to win and doesn't necessarily play fair. In a just world a few reasonable people would quietly get together and form a consensus AND the public would trust their position because of their proven trustfullness. However, this is politics (which includes grandstanding in front of the cameras) so it comes off as a lot of blathering instead of respectful debate.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#33 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:23 PM EST

    Ah dont liyk them thar hmersectshuls.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#34 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:25 PM EST

    Personally, if I wer in the army, as a male, i wouldnt want to know that the person protecting me was a homo. I would feel like if i died next to them , they'd want me in those last hours of life. And, why would a gay guy want to be in the military, arent they too pretty for that. Now a dike on the other hand, is a separate issue. cause a dike girl, is fine being in the military cause they are badass and wont hit on all the married me, so go gay ladies, just not gay men, that is sick! straight men in the military, dont want to worry about being fudge packed at basic training or any situation like that. It is better off, if you are gay, not telling anyone, then you wont get ostrasized. I think if you are a homosexual male, the military is the wrong place to be.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#35 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:44 PM EST

    lets awste some more tax dollars on nothing but grandstanding. all i know is when you need help the first question you don't ask is are you gay.

      Reply#36 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:51 PM EST

      First of all I want to know what happened to freedom of speech? If it comes to being muslim or being gay, you almost have no right to say anything about the issue without being hung for disagreeing about it. Im going to say it, Gays should not feel entitled to have the same rights as straight people, bcause it is thier stupid choice to be gay, not a genetic disposition. And Radical Muslim Terrorists should all die, cause they deserve it, the end...

      • 2 votes
      Reply#37 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:59 PM EST

      the American military has probably had more gay men and women serving with the distinction than will ever be known. This is not a new issue for America; when Truman ordered a study and eventually desegregated the US military, there were also opponents who were against the idea because of some idiotic notion of racial superiority. I'm sure many on this blog remember the old saying, "there are no atheist in the foxholes". When the bullets are flying pass your head and you hear that sound that you never will forget it either, you can be assured that during those moments when you have the time to reflect about how fragile your human existence is, the last thing you'll be wondering about is if the other war fighter next to me is gay or lesbian. Don't let these ridiculous arguments against repealing this archaic "law" from self-serving politicians sway you. These men and women are still American citizens who are willing to put it on the line for you and for me just because they believe in what they do. To ask them to lie just to make some foolish old men (and I'm in my 50's now) feel good is no way to lead. We are Americans and many, many have fought so that the future Americans can enjoy the rights, blessing and privileges of being American. One last thing I want to note, our Declaration of Independence did not say that "some" men are created equal - it states that "ALL" men are created equal. It was one of the many rally points to fight the oppression of a government that wanted to rule without allowing a say from the colonies. How did we stray away from the noble starting point to get where we are in this discussion. Repeal the law.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#38 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 1:24 PM EST

      It's completely absurd this is even an issue. We should be thankful to anyone willing to risk their life to defend our country and our constitution... You know, that same document that allows people to cry about gays being in the military. I suggest anyone who has their panties in a wad over it go enlist and willingly take their place in the armed forced. We are nearly in 2011, not 1011. Get over it and find something better to worry about. Gays are not martians here to invade us and take over the world. If gays are such a threat to 'you', maybe you should be questioning your own sexuality rather then their motives to want to serve.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#39 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 1:29 PM EST

      Excellent point!

      • 1 vote
      #39.1 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 1:32 PM EST
      Reply

      actually, let's changed don't ask don't tell to if your gay, no way. We could implement some kind of mental test to test our new sign ins to see if they mentally have any inclination or fantasy with the same sex. Then we would elimate them.

      Or on the serious note. Don't want to go to war, just offer sex during the exam. Wow, a lof of people can get out of enlisting just by failing that test. Doesn't matter if true or not. Just need to get out of the war.

      We need to change Congress. Both Houses. THEY ARE OLD. Out of TOUCH. HAVE NO CLUE. We need some law like we have with the President, he can serve 2 terms in a row. That's it. In Congress we need to change it to 1 term and NO BENEFITS. In other words. Get a life after serving. We will count your 4 year term in Congress as Military Service. Your obligation to our country. Think of the BILLIONS we would save if they served 1 term and had no PERKS except 4 years of service (they still owe 2).

      • 1 vote
      Reply#40 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 1:41 PM EST

      Although I did not see the entire speech, I do not believe Obama touted his stance on DADT to the troops. If he is so sure it is embraced by the troops, why did he not speak of his wants on this issue to them?

        Reply#41 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 1:43 PM EST

        Mccain joined the service at the time when we had a draft. The military consisted of school drop outs, men with abuse problems etc.....but very few who looked to the military as a career.

        Today men join to further their education and job potential. They are a far different and more well informed group. The fears of mccain are based on an army of the past and have little of no basis of credibility in the army of today.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#42 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 2:14 PM EST

        The United States Senate has once again proven that they will debated an issue to death instead of making a decision. None of them have any backbone at all. This is an easy question. Do we give people equal rights or not? Do we force people to lie about who they are to serve our country? It is ridiculous to ask some to risk their lives and tell them that they still can't be honest about who they are. It is time to stop all of these silly debates, give these people all of their rights, including the right to marry, and move on. Move on includes the understanding that some people will be uncomfortable about giving people rights equal to those they enjoy without question, but they will eventually adjust, or not. Whatever. The bottom line is the sooner this happens the better. We can all move on and adjust and finally act like a country that holds freedom and equality higher than any other country in the world. If people have religious beliefs that give the pause on these issues, so be it. There is separation of state and church and those who have issues need to deal with them and not include them in the end. All people deserve equal rights based on our Constitution and not on the doctrine of any religious organization. No one is asking the church to sanction anything, but we are saying that it is time the government face the fact that equal rights are being withheld and they are forcing people to lie in order to serve. Makes no sense at all. All this talk about war should be directed at ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't win either of these wars, we are in them for reasons that have been withheld from the public, we were lied to about why we started these wars and we had accomplished nothing but the killing of way too many people, ours and theirs, and we have buried ourselves in more debt. The Senators need to wake up and stop this madness.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#43 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 2:17 PM EST

        They pay taxes just like everyone else. So why should it be a problem. To me it doesn't make any difference because they are putting their life on the front line to fight for our freedom.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#44 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 2:25 PM EST

        It's just another political wedge issue that benefits the elected officials so that they can bait and switch on the real issues they should be dealing with.

        How can we ask people to lie about themselves and then trust them with some of the most security related sensitive data about America. It just doesn't jive with the core military values I was taught of honor, duty and service to others. Legalizing and sanctioning lies just to support the unsustainable concept of DADT is completely insane and would be unwarranted if our elected officials would simply do their jobs instead of posturing for re-election and sound bites.

          #44.1 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 2:47 PM EST
          Reply

          Yes, they MAY NOT adjust, they may just leave. The military protects the nation. If 1/4 to 1/3 of the military decides not to continue to serve, what is the impact? Would you justify denying service members to guit because it would cripple parts of our military. You don't just hire a replacement like you would in a business. The military grows new replacements over time. This is more than a social issue.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#45 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 2:40 PM EST

          Ok, first of all military service is not a normal job in that you can give 2 weeks notice or quit on the spot if you want. It is contracted work and ironically the only way they could up and leave would be to announce they're homosexual. Aside of that, it's laughable to think anyone believes any large portion of the military would be so offended by the removal of DADT that they would want to discontinue their service to our country. I don't know if you've been to a recruiting office lately but is no shortage of people willing to join.

          Once again we're letting the screams of a small radical group drowned out the voice the majority. Of all the active, reserve, and retired people I know, I can't find a single person that thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to serve. The only people worried about the removal of DADT are the ones who are worried they'll have to reveal their true sexual preference. It's always the homophobes that have the strongest homosexual tendencies.

            #45.1 - Sat Dec 4, 2010 1:36 PM EST
            Reply
            jiuhuanDeleted
            jiuhuanDeleted

            Are we still on this???? Leave the Homosexual DADT law in place and move on. This isn't a pressing

            subject.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#48 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 4:13 PM EST

            Nothing has more effectively fanned the hatred of gay people than the appalling debacle of the DADT hearings these past two days. While there were some refreshing (if not inspiring) “it’s-the-right-thing-to-do” responses from some of the Armed Services Chiefs, most of session served little more than a demonizing of gay people. To listen to Senators Sessions and McCain, and to some Services Chiefs tell how apparently daunting a task this will be, one would think gays are some horrific species of aliens from another planet.

            So much talk about implementation, phasing in, etc., it was dizzying. Of course, this is nonsense. It takes far more effort to discriminate than to accept and tolerate. They need only stop the discrimination. "Implementation" is nothing more than halting the proactive pursuance of gay people. We forget that the original policy was supposed to be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” After 14,000 discharges, it's clear the last part was ignored in favor of the witch hunt that continues today.

            This is all so much ado about (practically) nothing.

              Reply#49 - Sat Dec 4, 2010 12:02 AM EST
              jingjingdeDeleted

              It is not an "absolute right" to serve in the military. Lots of people are kept from serving for all sorts of reasons. Just remember that the military is an instrument of war and not a social club.

                Reply#51 - Sat Dec 4, 2010 2:26 PM EST
                Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.