Obama pledges to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, repeal DOMA … sometime
posted at 12:00 pm on October 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
During the campaign, Barack Obama made a lot of promises to various constituencies of the Democratic Party, including the gay/lesbian lobby — and they’re agitating for some action on these pledges. Obama insisted yesterday at a meeting of a gay-rights organization that he would end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) in the military and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the attendees could be excused a healthy amount of skepticism:
President Barack Obama pledged to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,’” Obama said at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to end the ban, but did not give a timetable or the specifics that some activists have called for. …
“We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country,” Obama said. “We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage … especially when we are fighting two wars. …
Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.
First, DOMA does not limit how states can recognize partnerships, as the AP writes. States can pass whatever partnership laws they want. What DOMA does is keep the federal government from forcing states to recognize the partnership laws of other states, bypassing the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution for marriage laws. Congress enacted it when it became apparent that judges in state courts wanted to bypass legislatures and carve out legal civil marriages for gays through judicial activism.
Repealing DOMA would take some work. Obama has to get both the House and Senate to pass a repeal of the law, which still remains popular. If he wanted to do that, he would need to act rather quickly, as Democrats will likely lose a lot of ground in the midterms. However, with the increasingly unpopular ObamaCare bill stalled in Congress, another unpopular cap-and-trade bill stuck as well, and 2009 running out of days, we’re not likely to see any attempt until at least 2011. Democrats know a repeal attempt in an election year would be political suicide for the midterms — and after the midterms, they’re not likely to have the strength to pass it.
DADT is another matter entirely. All it would take to end it is an executive order. Obama is, after all, the Commander in Chief. Obama wants Congress to take the heat for this as well, though, and has passed the buck on the issue since his first day in office. What’s more, on this issue, Obama has it right. DADT served a useful purpose in showing that gays can serve honorably in the military, but the time has come to end it. Unfortunately for his cheering throngs at the HRC dinner, Obama doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions to take that step himself.
In other words, these sound an awful lot like his other promises — which Jim Geraghty reminds us always come with expiration dates.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
So do it Obama. It only needs your signature. Why not do it today?
angryed on October 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
When he does, there’s gonna be a whole lot of surprises in a whole lot of foxholes.
VoyskaPVO on October 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Let me be clear, I will approve whatever Nanzi Pelosi and Haggard Harry sends me…talk to them about timing.
d1carter on October 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Are they going to build separate barracks and “heads and latrines” for the openly gay soldiers?
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM
President Present!
farright on October 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM
He’ll never do it. Words..empty words is all they are.
becki51758 on October 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Congress did pass a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” statute at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654.
Whether an executive order as C-in-C could override a statute is a great con law exam question. I’d doubt it.
Wethal on October 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Artist,
the morons who support repealing this don’t think that far ahead. They just parrot the “patriotic americans should be able to serve” nonsense. They dont understand all of the various things that can get you discharged from the military, such as weight, a zillion medical issues, etc.
Homosexuals can work for the state department, etc. People in the military are not interested in being part of a social project to see how well they handle a guy staring at them in the shower, etc. Sexual attraction is not something you can turn on and off like a switch. I’d be attracted to a woman taking a shower just as much as a homosexual would be attracted to a man.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM
What he really said:
Guardian on October 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
During the original DOMA debate way back in the 90s, I remember some people saying it was unnecessary because no one was seriously pushing gay marriage.
zmdavid on October 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
You must have been outraged that President Bush never even brought up the subject of ending DADT. Or did the time to end it come after January 20, 2009?
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I wonder how you would feel if 99.5% of the military didn’t want black people to serve.
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM
So soldiers who are dying in Af/Pak — where the enemy hates gays worse than right-wing religious zealots do — because gutless, treacherous Osama Obama refuses to give them the tools, personnel and ROE they need will now be able to acknowledge that they’re gay?
Typical of the Traitor-in-Chief.
MrScribbler on October 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM
John McCain “let’s let a thousand flowers bloom”
Dr Evil on October 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I can see the beginning of the end of the all volunteer armed services.
fourdeucer on October 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM
One can choose to reveal their sexual orientation, the color of the skin not so much.
thomasaur on October 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Can you imagine how much this would screw up all aspects of the military? Even insults would be ineffective. Picture this: A DI yelling “Move your a$$es ladies!” at which point half the platoon starts dancing. Not a pretty picture.
Guardian on October 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Why?
a capella on October 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM
One of the reasons I believe liberals push the gay agenda on everyone is it can be used as a political vehicle to silence the opposition. Ever been called a “racist” for debating a liberal? Well, a pastor can be jailed for biblically speaking out against homosexuality, don’t believe me look no further then Canada. better to stop it in it’s tracks then let metamophasize into something bigger.
Another reason I’m against the homosexual agenda is because it teams with the political party of socialism and communism. These leftist gays would vote for Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin if it meant them getting all the “so-called” rights they want. Gotta to look a tthe big picture in all of this.
Hey, if a person want’s to live the homosexual lifestyle go ahead…but don’t force it on the rest of us who live a normal life.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM
That’s irrelevant to the point I was making. Reading comprehension fail.
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Why end it? Why?
This is an absolutely nuts proposal on Mr. Peace Prize’s part. It won’t happen and is just more material for SNL and CNN to fill time with.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I wonder how you would feel if 99.5% of the military didn’t want black people to serve.
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM
You reference black people, who disagree with your position.
Funny that.
IOW, they don’t want you misrepresenting them or using them as a victim card.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I’d be attracted to a woman taking a shower just as much as a homosexual would be attracted to a man.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Zactly.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Those HRC “leadership” loons were eating it up, too. I cancelled my membership with them over a decade ago. Idiots. Useful idiots they are. Perhaps the scales have fallen from the eyes of the rank and file, though. From GayPatriot…
SouthernGent on October 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
“The time has come to end it…”? saith Ed Morrissey.
Why?
We need a more fragmented and more disorganized and more self-conflicted miltary as we face the most implacable and terroristic enemy in history?
To placate social experimenters?
Using the armed services as their lawsuit-peddling plaything?
FAIL.
profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Don’t compare a sexual behavior to skin color. The gay mafia has been decrying themselves as an oppressed minority to mirror that of the civil rights movement. In reality, a lot of homosexuals are very affluent, successful businessmen. Just look at the entertainment industry, if your gay, you have more talent. Look at Elton John, very good music because he can hit the “high” note(sarc). Hollywood is ran by those who are gay are sympathetic to the cause. I think they control enough(too much).
This isn’t a racial issue, it’s a behavior issue.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM
blah blah blah. I have heard this song before.
Terrye on October 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Homosexuals can already serve in the military, genius.
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM
guess you can witness the volatility of the situation. Don’t go cry wolf…
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:28 PM
That’s irrelevant to the point I was making. Reading comprehension fail.
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Because you say so?
You got owned.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Homosexuals can already serve in the military, genius.
Proud Rino on October 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Thanks for demonstrating you don’t understand the topic at hand, genius.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
He got pwned!
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Who cares if gays serve in the military? As long as they fulfill the other qualifications, I don’t see the big deal…
nazo311 on October 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
People tune out their sexual attraction all the time. That is how marriage works or jobs where co-workers are young and attractive.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
While our military struggles, Obama tickles the ears of HRC event of ways to further destroy the military.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
But now we will be telling them they don’t have to turn it off. It’s a mistake.
zmdavid on October 11, 2009 at 12:33 PM
People tune out their sexual attraction all the time. That is how marriage works or jobs where co-workers are young and attractive.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Or…
That’s how they don’t.
Marriage fails…office affairs…
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The big deal seems to be them serving and being openly gay. Because as we all know, once DADT is repealed, all the gay soldiers will limp their wrist, call their buddies “girlfriend” and hump every guy in sight.
/sarc
ThePrez on October 11, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Good lord people, gays already serve in the military and give their lives to defend our freedom.
They deserve to be treated with some respect. DADT is BS and needs to end.
As Barry Goldwater said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.”
jhffmn on October 11, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I disagree with Obama on ending the DADT policy, but I agree that he should go through Congress if he wants to do it. I don’t think it’s passing the buck.
It is Congress that is responsible for raising and regulating the military (Article I, section 8). It is Congress that wrote the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and so any major change to the way the military operates should be done by the Congress.
capricorn on October 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Off on a tangent, but this once again illustrates that the Democrats don’t get it: It is not two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are not separate wars, but theaters in a larger conflict ranging from Morocco to the Philippines, and including Europe and North America if you include counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations. It is a single war with devout followers of Islam as Muhammad preached it, and Iran is its center. And it is just the latest phase of a war that’s been going on for over 1,300 years. Republicans are only mildly more open about this, but Obama and his faction are in utter denial.
irishspy on October 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM
yet another thing he bashed Hill with that he has done absolutely nada about
I will believe it when it happens
this is the same guy who met with gay reps of the community IN THE BASEMENT of the staples center when he had Oprah and Maria Shriver and the Kennedy wimmuns upstairs for a big televised bash
yeah let’s see how long this pander lasts…
ginaswo on October 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Goodness, people really do not understand this issue, do they?
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Last I checked, I don’t live with, shower with and sleep with the same people I worked with 24/7.
Mo_mac on October 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM
The President made promises that he now has to keep….got to get votes for 2012.
yoda on October 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
He’s a she and is all knowing. She makes a one sentence statement and faults others for lacking the ability to comprehend her incomplete thought. I normally know better than to engage w/ her because it always ends the same; we’re less than her.
thomasaur on October 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
A totally unrelated comparison and obviously untrue but I’ll play your game.
There would either be few blacks in the military or the military would be mostly black. That’s what happens with an all volunteer military. People who won’t agree to compromise their values will not reenlist or join in the first place.
You can’t legislate away people’s values. In my opinion if Gays are allowed to be openly homosexual in actions and appearance then they will have to reinstate the draft.
Guardian on October 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I care because it forces serviceman like me to accept their life style as normal, when it’s not.
Scientifically, there is no proof that a person is born gay. So before we force it on society, let’s debate it in the arena of ideals then we will learn the facts of the matter.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
The man is a distraction from what’s actually going on in government.
He’s a talking curtain. That’s what he is and all he is.
Dusty on October 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM
What I am about to say is not based on political analysis, or some clever wedge politics. If gays serve openly in the military, fine, If they don’t, fine. But what I heartily disagree with is this statement:
We have become too used to viewing the entire Armed Forces as the Chief Executive’s private possession and preserve, just as in the days of the Age of Battles. It must end. The Constitution cleary states that Congress is the one that has the power to set the conditions for service in the United States Armed Forces:
Article I, Section 8: “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;”
Within the rules set forth by Congress, the President may command the Armed Forces of the United States, as if he were a general. That is the meaning of the word “commander-in-chief”. The President is a civilian general. He is not the rule maker for the Armed Forces, just a General Eisenhower and General Pershing and General Petraeus is and was not.
Thus, it is Congress that must decide the fate of gays, not the President. If the US Code has a regulation preventing their service, than for the President to actively call for the disregarding that code is an attempt at subversion of the Code (however small). If the US Code (Title 10, I believe) has no prevision preventing service by gays, then the attempts by the US to exclude them have no basis in law and are potentially illegitimate.
Therefore, if President Obama wishes to exhort Congress to change Title 10, then the more power to him. If he wishes to stop actions that have no basis in Title 10, then more power to him. If he wishes to just order the military to ignore a clear law in Title 10, then he needs to be removed from office.
We have got to get back to a clear understanding of the rule of law, and violations must be viewed as just a serious breach as whatever was attempting to be rectified. Else we become–if we have not already become–a nation of men and media, not laws, where one’s security under those laws depends only upon what the major media are willing to decry.
The Review delenda est.
Horatius on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
They deserve to be treated with some respect.
….
They are.
All who wear the uniform are treated with respect.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Well, I’m in agreement with most that anything Obama “promises” is a moot point.
And also, as much as I’d like to see gays openly serve (putting their lives on the line just like anyone else), it’s something I would leave up to the military to decide.
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
The only issue I would disagree with Barry Goldwater on…then again, I don’t agree with my own mother on everything.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Sure, but we don’t tell married men and women that they can’t go to work because some of them will have affairs. However, there are laws against sexual harassment.
In civilian life most people have showered with a gay person if they belong to a gym or a pool or had phys ed in school.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
More voting “present”…
And where does the “queen” shower? In the ladies, where “he” was born inside a woman, or with the men?
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
If you are going to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, do it. Frankly he could just keep the official restriction in place, but make the penalty an administrative one for over expressions that disrupt unity or something. Essentially, rather than going for a touch down, just get a first down. But keeping this in place, saying it is wrong, and doing nothing makes the problem worse than saying nothing at all.
Mr. Joe on October 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
In civilian life most people have showered with a gay person if they belong to a gym or a pool or had phys ed in school.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
I’m sure I have but was not aware of it.
I have not publicly showered with women though.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Obama will end DADT after the mid-terms, so that the Blue Dogs don’t have to deal with the bigotry of swing voters next fall.
I realize I live in a stereotypically leftist/yuppie enclave with at least four long-term sanme-sex couples sharing my alley, but the idea that an individual couldn’t serve becaus of their orientation seems freakishly odd.
it’s hard to believe that this is even an issue.
Bleeds Blue on October 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Ah Ed,
I’m surprised. The military’s DODT policy serves to ensure that, at the very least, military bearing is kept while on duty. Who’s to say that gay servicemembers are working well because of DODT’s effect on how they interact with troops?
This is not to say that every homosexual will be flamboyantly about it, but for the sake of unit cohesion, no one needs to know that private snuffy is “batting for the other team.”
Second, you and I know very well that such changes would not just come on their own, but will soon be followed by other “sensitivity training” initiatives designed at socially engineering people to actually celebrate “gay culture” (in much the same way they seem to have given in to monthly “ethnic culture” recognitions, and frequent “sexual harrassment” training when harrassment defined merely by what is perceived as harrassing). Moreover, part of this movement aims at eliminating gender distinctions as actionable (such as quarters and restrooms). This is not a philosophy the military can seriously accommodate and remain effective.
Alexander on October 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
A nod to the base, like immigration….we’ll get to that sometime, illegal aliens that voted for the messiah.
9.8% unemployment
Iran with a nuke
Afghanistan
President toolbag has bigger fish to fry than worrying about swishes in the military.
HornetSting on October 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Obama is hell bent on blowing apart all the cultural foundations this country has built over the last 200 + years that has made it unique and successful.
This is so distressing to watch my beautiful homeland fall into complete chaos.
If DOMA goes, do goes the country. We didn’t need a DOMA decades ago because it was simply understood. Now the commie progressives have infected their anything goes, Godless agenda into the culture and Obama is going to pull the last remaining failsafes that dictate a natural order.
sigh…
katy on October 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM
If the military needs some level of segregation to preserve discipline, that should be up to the commanders. Serving in the military isn’t a right, marriage is though.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Sorry but they can’t have it both ways (well some probably do)…
They state that they were “born” that way, that they are often women inside, but a man on the outside…so where do they “bunk”, with the men or the women…or do they get to choose.
Coed bunking I do not believe is allowed or sanctioned in the military.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM
So then you answer, do they bunk with the men or the women?
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
My son was in the Navy back in the mid 1990s, and was a petty officer on the USS Eisenhower. He said there were lots of gays on board, and they were actually quite obvious about it, and usually hung together in groups. He also found it odd that most of the most obvious were were black. I guess the “don’t ask” part was the only part of the deal being enforced, the “tell” part had already occurred. C’est la vie.
bradley11 on October 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
WHAT A ~*LEGENDARY*~ GAY RIGHTS ADVOCATE!!! <3333
I’m SO HAPPY he’s in office so he CAN PROMISE RESULTS SOMEHOW AND SOMEDAY unlike that wolf-killing gutterwench Sarah Palin (who existed solely to stick my people in clay ovens, donchaknow. YOU BETCHA!).
(for those who are internetally-challenged, let me footnote that with on big /SARC tag, k)
Ugh. My people (teh gays) are so stupid.
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Where’s my government supplied spouse?
zmdavid on October 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Don’t ask, don’t tell,that the newest Nobel Peace Prize recipient is an empty suit airhead dingbat leftist.
Oops! I let the cat out of the bag.
Really Right on October 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Coed bunking is not the trend at the University of Chicago.
Be interesting to see how many kids evolve from this idiotic policy.
bradley11 on October 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM
What?
Come on now. Just look at the militaries of other nations who allow gays to serve openly. Not a whole lot of problems have happened.
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Error: CO-ED bunking IS now allowed at the U of Chicago.
bradley11 on October 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM
BBunk with whichever gender you share reproductive organs with.
Bleeds Blue on October 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
We are not “other nations” were different then they are. Why look to their example when we’re the super power? we became a super power for some reason and social experimenting isn’t one of them.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM
You can be born with an attraction to the opposite sex yet not be attracted to all its members. A man can also look at a (very) attractive woman and say “I’m married, she’s married, let’s just focus on work”.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Each country has their own mores…they have their own society.
The argument, and you know it is, often is that gay men are often born as women “inside” and men outside…so my challenge is, where do they bunk?
Many groups use arguments to move their cause forward, then when the argument ends up not helping, they discard it and pretend the argument never existed.
I am bringing up a historical argument that has been used time and time again by gay men….and some lesbian women.
Hence the transvestite, pre-op, and post-op and the many between.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
The desire to serve county trumps open behavior of sexuality. That is how it worked for me. If open behavior of homosexuality is so important to you, perhaps you should look for another way to serve your country.
BTW….in 6 years in the Army as a 21D (Legal Specialist)….I never had a case of discharge for DADT. It is simply too rare to make such a radical change to the military to satisfy a group of radicals that would never serve in the military anyway.
oceansidecon on October 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM
The opposition to homosexuality is, among other things, rooted in a religious and moral belief that has been around thousands of years. Beating the old dead horse of comparing it to black people is idiotic.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Racial integration was a much bigger social experiment since it was ahead of where civilian society was. It is during that time that the US attained super power status.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM
The problem is in segregating groups who want to have sex with each other. It’s easy to segregate men from women, in sleeping and showering. But it’s impossible to segregate gays from each other. Do you understand what I’m saying? I don’t understand if you have a valid view. If you do, please give it. Otherwise I might have to think you’re being intentionally dense.
Paul-Cincy on October 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
sorry…meant 27D…not 21D
oceansidecon on October 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
This is crazy. Don’t as don’t tell allows anyone of any sexual whatever to serve. Getting rid of it totally throws this whole controversy back into the spotlight, which we can not afford right now.
It looks to me like the special interest groups are just playing Mr. Peace Prize to see who can get the most press. Mr. Peace Price is a buffoon and narcissist playing right into the war for the spotlight.
Pretty f ing sickening.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
You didn’s answer the question…where does he/she bunk…if he/she feels inside they are a woman…
Now answer the question that the gays have been so upfront about…gender switching.
Do we bunk by physical, or psychological…
If you say psychological, and use your argument, then why are the men and women separated now? Since by your words they can control their emotions.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
people such as proud rino and jetboy want to remake the entire mentality and morals, etc of the military so they can have men running around in dresses. I’m sure that’s a great usage of resources to try to force people who think something is immoral to no longer think that. That’s what the military is about after all, im sure.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
We didn’t become a superpower because of not allowing gays to serve openly, I’m willing to bet.
Look…As a teh ghey, I’m all for equal rights. And again, as far as our military is concerned in this, I say leave it up to them to decide what’s best. But to suggest that somehow our own military would cease to function to it’s best because of gays openly serving is doing a major disgrace to the professionalism and dedication of our own troops.
I have all the faith that they’d be able to handle it.
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
“ask” and “prize”, sorry for the typos. The more agitated the topic gets me the worse the typing.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM
As i’ve said, the proponents of this are not military personnel, and they don’t think that far down the line. They just deal in generalities without having to worry about specifics.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Proud RINO:
Actually, you are the one with reading comprehension fail. Source comment was “We will aggravate 99.5% of the military. . .”, which you took to mean that 99.5% of the military don’t want gays to serve with them. There are all sorts of issues at play that may “aggravate” our Armed Forces about this issue other than your one-dimensional inference from the statement.
Such as: treating the military as “just another profession” rather than the high-stress, fundamentally different calling it is; changing any law supposedly for recruiting and retention when a) neither are in a bad spot right now and b) when there is no evidence–even anecdotal–that DADT is keeping interested homosexuals from serving right now; and finally, there’s been no evidence presented that states the military would see an increase in readiness with this change. The military has to do that with EVERY program they are continuing or starting right now. . .except this one. It smacks of politics (which, of course, is what it is), and the military doesn’t like when they are played as pawns in a political game.
johnny alpha on October 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Move on, that talking point is no longer listed by the liberals…the blacks took care of that. Ask the NAACP if there is a comparison, and see how quick they label you the racist you are.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Amongst the ironies of this debate is the fact that the legendary militarists, the Spartans (incidentally, a gay motorcycle club here in DC) encouraged man-on-man sex in their army on the theory that you’d be more likely to fight hard in front od someone with whom you were sleeping.
Bleeds Blue on October 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Heh. Did you guys know that Obama took his family to church today (for what, the second time?)?
I’m sure that had nothing to do with his big gay speech last night.
Is there anything that this guy does that does without some sort of political motivation.
As a Christian, does he not feel guilt for only showing up to church when he needs it for political cover?
Joe Caps on October 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
That is not what Jetboy is saying…
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Correct, but segregation in itself is immoral, looking down on another person because of their skin color.
Now take Homosexuality. There has never been society that has flourished with institutionalized homosexuality. Usually, they fell and fell hard like Sodom and Gomorrah.
Skin color and sexual behavior are opposite of each other as far as the east is from the west. therefore to compare gay behavior to racism is irrelevant.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Are you really that dense?
“Running around in dresses”? And for “remaking the military”, I’ve said repeatedly…leave it to the military to decide what’s best.
Cripes.
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Joe Caps on October 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
TMI!!
Guardian on October 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM
In practice the bunking would be by gender and commanders would address discipline issues based on behavior. As I mentioned above I don’t have an issue with commanders being able to keep gay personnel from some assignments.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »