[itchypickle]

Obama loses another campaign promise as of today. The Senate failed to move forward with repeal of the policy allowing gays to serve openly in the military. At this rate....Obama has yet to accomplish anything for his fellow officials to run on their record in November. NICE JOB Mr. "I'm gonna change Washington and get away from partisan politics as usual"

[The Madcap]

I don't understand why people are in such a rush to repeal "don't ask don't tell." As unseemly as the law comes across, it actually serves to benefit homosexuals in the military, as it allows them to serve, while also helping to prevent discrimination.

WHaaaaaaat?!?

That's right, "don't ask don't tell" PREVENTS discrimination against homosexuals in the military.

How so?

If drill sergeants, commanding officers, and fellow soldiers don't know who is or isn't a homosexual, then they can't deny homosexuals proper promotion, they can't target a homosexual for physical abuse, they can't give homosexuals undeserved or unwarranted disciplinary action, nor can they routinely assign them undesirable duties. If you don't know who's gay or not, then you can't discriminate against gays can you?

I know, I can hear it already, banning homosexuals from serving openly is in and of itself discrimination. You're right. It is. SO WHAT? The world isn't perfect. If the world was perfect, we wouldn't need police officers to protect us from criminals, or the ACLU to protect us from the police. And we wouldn't need to worry about people being discriminated against. But the world isn't perfect. And that's why you have to pick your battles. And that's why I have to wonder if this whole challenge to "don't ask don't tell" is a sincere attempt by patriotic homosexuals to be allowed to serve their country, or bitter resentful homosexuals lashing out at a world that is often still incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept their lifestyle. If all the homosexuals really cared about was serving their country, then it shouldn't matter to them that they be specifically recognized as homosexuals while they do it. All that should matter is that they are recognized as Americans.

Having openly gay soldiers will cause dissention in the military ranks. Because just like everybody else, homosexuals aren't perfect, and eventually, one of them is going to screw up, and he's going to bring down some shit upon himself from the hire ups, and one of them is going to be weak-minded and defiant enough to believe they are being targeted for their orientation and not their incompetence. And this is going to lead to investigations, and lawsuits, and soldiers turning against one another for resentment. It's going to divide our forces. To deny this is to be naive or arrogant.

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for homosexuals-you might just get it.

[andywend]

I would like to ask all the liberals on this board exactly what they object about the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy?

This is not a partisan issue as Bill Clinton was the one who signed it into law and it is the perfect solution to allow gays to serve in the military without getting ridiculed.

I would like to know how repealing DADT is going to benefit gays serving in the military? If its repealed then it will be legal for military personnel to ask others if they are gay? NOBODY WINS, EVERYBODY LOSES if DADT is repealed.

I have always had trouble understanding what goes on in the mind of a liberal democrat but wanting DADT repealed is something I can't figure out.

[Hotdiggity11]

I would like to ask all the liberals on this board exactly what they object about the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy?

This is not a partisan issue as Bill Clinton was the one who signed it into law and it is the perfect solution to allow gays to serve in the military without getting ridiculed.

I would like to know how repealing DADT is going to benefit gays serving in the military? If its repealed then it will be legal for military personnel to ask others if they are gay? NOBODY WINS, EVERYBODY LOSES if DADT is repealed.

I have always had trouble understanding what goes on in the mind of a liberal democrat but wanting DADT repealed is something I can't figure out.

The most important part of DADT I disagree with is that it impacts military people OUTSIDE of the job. People have gotten kicked out of the military for being seen in a Wal-Mart line holding hands with someone of the same sex and getting reported to their superiors. People have had police break into their home and notice marriage licenses or other signs of a same-sex relationship/marriage and had it reported to their superiors and, as a result, had them kicked out of the military.


Here is one such example:

These days Amy Brian, a former Kansas Army National Guard specialist, can hold hands with her partner without fear of discovery. She can sit next to her in a restaurant booth and not worry about what people think, what they might say, what they might do. Still, Brian cannot forget how her service in the Guard officially ended last month after a civilian co-worker said she saw Brian kissing a woman in a Wal-Mart checkout line.
"I got along with everybody," said Brian, 34, seated on the couch of her Topeka home. "My close friends knew I was gay. I never said it - it was just known and wasn't a problem."
Brian is the only gay person to be discharged from the Kansas Army National Guard under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was introduced during the Clinton administration in 1993 and which the military began implementing in 1994. About 12,500 lesbian, homosexual and bisexual service members were discharged under the policy between 1994 and 2007. Figures for 2008 are not yet available.
The policy bans military recruiters or authorities from asking someone about his or her sexual orientation, but it also prohibits a service member from revealing if he or she is gay.
"This decision was not based on performance, but federal law," Sharon Watson, public affairs director for the Kansas adjutant general's office, said of Brian's discharge. "We recognize the sensitivity of the issue. It's a federal law all military must follow."
Before the policy was put into place, gay men and lesbians were barred from serving in the military. When he ran for president in 1992, Bill Clinton pledged to change that. But after he was elected, Clinton had to compromise with "don't ask, don't tell."
Top civilian and military leaders in the Defense Department have expressed support for the policy. In 2007, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he believed homosexual acts were immoral and worked against good order and discipline in the services.
During the most recent presidential campaign, Barack Obama said he would work to end the policy, but because it is dictated by federal law, the rule cannot be overturned except by Congress.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/artic...1970cfd59.html



Can anyone justify this aspect of DADT? Seriously, kissing in a Wal-Mart line is grounds for being kicked out of the military but we are now allowing formerly convicted felons into the military?

[itchypickle]

What people seem to forget....serving in the military has certain standards...some are crazy yes...but still policy. Not everyone is eligible. Gays know this going in...so if they are caught...they not only have a leg to stand on...but it goes against the core values that go with the tradition. There are tons of disqualifying actions...color blindness...weight...diabetes...asthma.. ..criminal history...height...old injuries...sleep walking....you name it. Are some of these outdated...absolutely! But to have some of the recent high profile cases where gays take admission to West Point or other fish bowl situations...and then resign or are caught in a relationship...then proceed to take to the cameras to preach about the policy...is just wrong.

[RibbedTrojan]

Obama will fall HARD along with his socialist democrats!!!!!!!!!! Go tea parties!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[guitarjosh]

Is there a way we could let the people in the military vote on this and that would settle the issue?

[BigdaddyQH]

Is there a way we could let the people in the military vote on this and that would settle the issue?

If that were to happen, they would not allow gays in the military. I find nothing wrong with the current policy, which was a bi-partisian effort signed into law by a Democratic President.

The disturbing this is that this was just a political ploy by Harry Reid to save his ass in Nevada. Everyone saw it for what it was. He attached it as a rider to the defense spending authorization bill. This and his attempt to make it easier for illegals to gain citizenship were obvious political ploys, to gain support from the traditional Democtatic voters, ie the Gays and Hispanics. Had he simply introduced a seperate bill, he would have had a much better chance at passage, and not given anyone who voted against it an excuse of "election politics". But Reid, like many Democrats, is running scared now, and is not thinking very rationally.

[Dad]

Don't the pink fatigues give it away?

[agharah1]

Appealing to your base seems fairly rational to me. In this day and age you don't win elections by appealing to the center. There is no center. There's Tea Parties knocking off establishment Republicans, and liberals who elevated Obama over Hillary into the White House. Example: heavy lack of enthusiasm for Democratic candidates this season. Exception: California, where Prop 19 has given liberals a reason to turn out for Boxer and Brown over Fiorina and Whitman.

[DwightShrute]

Try again. The dems refuse to let the defense bill on the floor because they don't want to have to vote on amendments added by the reps. They can't pass a repeal DADT if they don't allow the bill on the floor, and so as usual basically nothing gets done.

this is a fact

don't believe the spin the left wants you to swallow

[Data]

Is there a way we could let the people in the military vote on this and that would settle the issue?

I think there should be a military-wide referendum posing these two questions:

1) would feel comfortable serving alongside with gays
2) do you want gays serving in the military

If 50+% say yes to question 2, case closed, no restrictions for gays.
If not, but 20% say no to question 2 then there should be no gays in military whatsoever.

The military is no place to exercise your rights. Everyone in the military makes sacrifices, some ultimate ones. Those people give a lot. The society should return a favor and make it more comfortable for them, not less. This is NOT an issue about gays, this is a matter of a well being of military personnel and, in turn, a matter of national security, the only opinion that should matter is of those who serve.

[itchypickle]

I think there should be a military-wide referendum posing these two questions:

1) would feel comfortable serving alongside with gays
2) do you want gays serving in the military

If 50+% say yes to question 2, case closed, no restrictions for gays.
If not, but 20% say no to question 2 then there should be no gays in military whatsoever.

The military is no place to exercise your rights. Everyone in the military makes sacrifices, some ultimate ones. Those people give a lot. The society should return a favor and make it more comfortable for them, not less. This is NOT an issue about gays, this is a matter of a well being of military personnel and, in turn, a matter of national security, the only opinion that should matter is of those who serve.

Just one little problem....anyone who has served knows this next statement well "This is the Army...it's not a democracy! You don't get a vote"

[BigdaddyQH]

The problem with Prop19 is that it is losing in California, so how many pot heads are actually going to turn out and vote for it? Not nearly as many as those who will turn out and vote against it. Prop 19 will not lead to minorities and gays to the polls in large numbers. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that the failure of the Obama administration (Harry Reid) to pass the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the failed attempt to make it easier for millions of illegals to get green cards and become citizens will hurt the Democrats in the polls. The Republicans I know are going to turn out in force, to make sure such radical legislation has no chance of passing in the future. Hispanics and gays will probably not bother to go to the polls in large numbers, especially if the weather is bad. Liberals do not bother to vote in bad weather.