Rumor: Obama about to end “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
posted at 8:03 pm on January 25, 2010 by Allahpundit
Carl Levin dropped a hint earlier today about something being up on the DADT front and how the issue might pop up in the state of the union. Are we in store for a surprise announcement tomorrow? The White House would probably want to get out in front of it a day early so that news coverage the day after the speech is dominated by jobs talk instead of a minor hot-button issue:
Levin told reporters today that he has delayed plans to hold Senate hearings to examine the current “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy at the request of administration officials. Why would they want him to hold off? The officials Levin talked to said they expect the President will address the issue of homosexuals serving in the military during the State of the Union Address.
“I don’t know if it was the White House, but somebody representing them from the Pentagon said that the President was expected, they thought, to state that policy in the State of the Union and they thought it made more sense for him to state the policy and for us to have a hearing right before the policy with the people who will be defending that policy. They don’t know what it is,” said Levin, who added that he hopes any new policy is well-thought-out and that senior military leaders are on board.
Not sure if the timing’s coincidental or not, but this Journal op-ed last night by former Clinton gay rights advisor Richard Socarides ripping The One for dragging his feet on DADT was brutal. (Quote: “Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay.”) Also maybe coincidental: This Politico piece talking up how seriously Obama takes his duties as commander-in-chief, right down to taking lessons on how to properly deliver a military salute, which might have been fed to them by White House aides eager to blunt some of the criticism he’ll take for being “anti-military” or whatever if in fact he’s about to make this move.
The politics of it are a no-brainer. He desperately needs to throw the left a bone, especially if Reid and Pelosi are about to choke on ObamaCare, and this is one of the easiest he could throw them. Not only did he order the surge in Afghanistan, bolstering his hawkish credentials, but DADT actually polls badly among the public. A WaPo/ABC survey taken two years ago showed three-quarters of the public support letting gays serve; a Quinnipiac poll taken last year had narrower numbers but still a heavy majority in favor of repealing the policy — 56/37, including 50/43 among voters with family in the military. He’s got plenty of political cover, in other words. In fact, I wonder if the big reason Obama has held back on this until now (and, maybe, on gay marriage) is precisely because he’s thinking strategically and wants to be able to toss it out there when he most needs a boost from his base. This ought to do it.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Sorry, Zero. You’ve lost the gays. See for yourself at: http://www.hillbuzz.org
The site is run by some gay guys from Chicago who originally posted a formal apology to Mr. and Mrs. Bush after the Terrorist Attack at Fort Hood.
Key West Reader on January 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM
What better way to get a boost in the polls than by politicizing the military.
Typical Donk-think.
Bruno Strozek on January 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM
thanks for the heads up…
proud of him and all of you here on HA that have served/are serving this great nation
THANK YOU!
cmsinaz on January 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM
I stand corrected.
Better?
As for the blood tests, the military’s (or at least the Army’s) policy is to test every 6 months, so if you’ve gone for 9 years only getting tested twice, that seems to be another scandal entirely, that they let you slip through the cracks like that. May I ask what time period this was?
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but i will never be able to understand a man,s attraction of desire for a man,s defecate portal.
royzer on January 25, 2010 at 9:27 PM
that ain’t old fashioned, roy, that’s normal.
ted c on January 25, 2010 at 9:29 PM
With all due respect… :::::::::::groan::::::::::::::
How many dignified Americans has Zero insulted with his half handed eff-u ‘salute’? Not to mention World Leaders. You’re glad he has “taken the time to learn how to execute a proper salute”?
Spit. Again, with all due respect. I just can’t stand this poser anymore.
Key West Reader on January 25, 2010 at 9:30 PM
odd then that you find a woman’s ‘urinate portal’ a turn on.
Grow Fins on January 25, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Let’s face it, in all honesty, the people (Carl Levin)that are clamoring about DADT being repealed are the same people that would turn our military into a version of UNICEF and have it occupy every third world nation.
MeatHeadinCA on January 25, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Over the past couple of decades men seem increasingly interested in using that same portal on a woman. Not sure if that’s considered normal–to each his own.
dedalus on January 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM
He’s desperate for some crumb of adoration, clearly…
D2Boston on January 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Me too. Got sucked into the black hole about 9 years ago and haven’t reached escape velocity since. Mare Island, Japan, San Diego, Everett, Mayport, Norfolk.
If you were out here before you punched out, maybe we’ve crossed paths. It’s a small Navy after all.
JeffWeimer on January 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Sayeth God.
Grow Fins on January 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM
I will be far more impressed when he does a 12 mile ruck march then takes to the rifle range and shoots expert.
Dragoonchris on January 25, 2010 at 9:33 PM
JeffWeimer on January 25, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Finally, someone said it. Funny that no one else has picked up on it yet.
Ending DADT isn’t a magic bullet. Unless and until the corresponding federal prohibition on gays in the military is removed – and Obambi can’t do that with a stroke of the pen.
As the above commenter noted DADT is simply a stop-gap around some of the federal provisions so gays can’t be outed prior to entry into the service as well as making investigations based simply on sexual orientation while on active duty prohibited. Unless the gay outs themselves, they’re free and clear; which makes all of this smack of activism, not any real attempt at ‘equality’. And it’s the Left who accuses many on the right on not knowing the details, like on health care. they don’t even know what DADT is, only what they’ve lathered themselves up into believing it is. Typical.
As with everything else Teleprompter Jesus has tried, he will find that making a promise is a lot harder than actually following through with action. Oh, he’d get some good press for the announcement and would probably get a temporary bounce, but as with everything else, when it stalled, he’d look even more feckless.
Oh, and can we please, once and for all, get over the “the AF doesn’t insert here”? Please? Yes, in the past, the AF had it better than other services and there wasn’t as much “boots on the ground” about the AF. Of course, why would there be, it’s the Air Force, but that seems to get lost on some – but anyway. Those days are over, by and large.
catmman on January 25, 2010 at 9:33 PM
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
Looks like Grow Fins
(a) flunked Human Anatomy 101
or
(b) hasn’t been near a female reproductive orifice since issuing from one, approximately twelve years ago
or
(c) both
Mary in LA on January 25, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Well, I’m pretty sure that is called sodomy – pretty new term.
MeatHeadinCA on January 25, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Mixed up bi- and semi-. That explains the other posters getting checked only once per year.
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 9:36 PM
96 to 05. And do you really think HIV tests are being handed out in Astan and Iraq every 6 months? If so, I have some real estate I would like to sell to you.
Your Article 90 argument…I never suggested that anyone commit assault or that I would disobey a superior officer.
1. Officers don’t fight, at least Signal Officers don’t.
2. If one soldier is wounded, odds are more than one are. So I would have to triage.
3. A superior officer would have to specifically order me to give medical treatment to said homosexual soldier for that article to be relevant. He/she wouldn’t even be near where I’m at.
Barracks lawyer FAIL.
Blarg the Destroyer on January 25, 2010 at 9:36 PM
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 9:27 PM
As to the blood test policy…
Even if an active duty service-member is identified as having HIV, they can continue to serve. Being HIV positive is not, in and of itself, a reason for discharge. I know, I know – but I din’t make up the policy.
A service-member who tested HIV positive would probably be med boarded and later discharged, but they can fight such actions if they wanted – especially if the infection was not due to personal action – if they contracted the infection accidentally as an example.
HIV positive soldiers are not ‘outed’ just as in most cases, soldiers seeking out certain types of mental health assistance aren’t known outside the senior members of their CoC.
I just retired back on November 1st. That was the policy at least up until then – and for the AF; it may be a bit different depending on service branch…
catmman on January 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Well, at least homosexuals aren’t a threat to shoot up the barracks like the diverse Major Hasan.
Seems to me though, rather than torpedoing DADT, Barry might want to spend some time considering whether all of the “tolerance” we’ve been indoctrinated with, has opened us up to an internal threat.
But hey, I’m just old-fashioned and think the purpose of the military is to fight and win wars, when enlightened individuals know that the number one priority is, well, something else entirely.
NoDonkey on January 25, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Doesn’t everyone except for Andy Sullivan?
MeatHeadinCA on January 25, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Intercourse, ur doin’ it wrong
batterup on January 25, 2010 at 9:41 PM
You’ve nailed the issue, no pun intended.
Now, personally, I could care less whether some guy working for or with me is gay, as long as he worked as hard as I expect of any of my employees or co-workers.
But, as I would be with any female employees or co-workers, I wouldn’t want them bathing or bunking with me. It’s just not appropriate in the workplace.
When you mix this kind of thing in any workplace, military or civilian, you’re adding unnecessary risk to the mission or business. And, in the military, when lives are on the line often every day, you just don’t need this extra muddle.
BTW, Honda, thanks for your service. Then and now.
TXUS on January 25, 2010 at 9:42 PM
I’ve been in the Air Force/Reserve/Guard since 1983. For the first few years I was pretty ambivalent about gays in the military. Then I started getting deployed in field conditions. Big difference. Working in a civilian office, factory, foundry, farm, whatever is nothing, nothing like even the mildest military deployment. The current force entered into service with an understanding of what the landscape was like. That landscape would be dramatically changed by this.
Obama is going to make my last three years tougher than the first 27…
darkpixel on January 25, 2010 at 9:43 PM
I like to call it “breaking things and killing people”. It sounds much more fun that way.
JeffWeimer on January 25, 2010 at 9:44 PM
oh and dude, if you can fit your penis into a urethra, ya might want to keep that to yourself.
batterup on January 25, 2010 at 9:44 PM
It’s nothing new, but its popularity increased among young straight couples in the ’90s and ’00s.
dedalus on January 25, 2010 at 9:44 PM
If open homosexuals get to serve in the military I’m sure all those who are not so inclined will be happy to know where the donated blood in their field hospitals is (potentially) coming from.
Saw a story just the other day about a lady “nurse” in Colorado who was a heroin addict who might have exposed over 300 patients to Hep C.
All sorts of fun thing homosexuals are known for carrying around in their blood stream.
BowHuntingTexas on January 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM
True. I have colleagues who have stated their intent to attempt to separate if this comes to pass by claiming breach of contract.
JeffWeimer on January 25, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Ah… that’s right it isn’t a new term…
And how exactly do you know that it’s popularity has increased? Did you bust out some Papal statistics from the 1600s?
MeatHeadinCA on January 25, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Well, he was being nice.
He could have instead talked about “that hole in a woman that regurgitates blood and endometrial tissue every month”.
But I doubt you’d have appreciated it.
Vyce on January 25, 2010 at 9:48 PM
pwn3d.
Geochelone on January 25, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Not much of an issue, unless you think the gay soldier is likely to be getting HIV while deployed in those countries.
Nope. Nothing in the code says anything about proximity or immediacy. Any commissioned officer gives you a lawful order, whether in the middle of a fight or sometime before, you have to obey.
Do I really think you’d be executed? It’s not very likely – you’d more likely be forced out of the service in disgrace, possibly with some jail time. But it’s certainly possible, and more likely than you getting HIV from a gay soldier whose been tested before deployment, and whose only liasons since then, if any at all, would be other HIV-negative soldiers willing to risk court-martial, or gay Muslims who are willing to risk being stoned for the doubly blasphemous act of committing sodomy with an Infidel.
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 9:56 PM
True, but they are not deployed outside of the continental US, so you would be no more likely to have to treat them than treat a gay civilian.
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 10:01 PM
+2
45lbs ruck
Area J Ft Bragg NC
sand.
ted c on January 25, 2010 at 10:03 PM
This is an interesting topic to me…
I was thinking ‘one way’ and then I went and asked my ‘retired’ Marine Corps Husband his opinion.
He says, Absolutely NO. Not. No Way. He says, Do NOT put them in the field.
lol..so I gave my arguments…what about ‘women in the military’
He says..’They are NOT in combat’
I say..well, aren’t there codes of conduct where you have to behave certain ways, blah blah, and even if you were ‘in the field’, surely the others would ‘stop’ that behavior asap…
He laughed and said, ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is a Distraction that is absolutely not needed. I used to shower with dozens of men..MEN, I’m saying! (lol..he’s getting excited there)
So, then I started arguing, as we women like to do…LOL…about all of the different scenarios.
He says….”Understand that all of the other forces, Army, Navy, AirForce are not the Marine Corps…The Marines do Not need this bs distraction”
I told him that I’ve witnessed many people on this blog who are not Marines who feel as he does. He said, “Good…then they Know what the *&^&* is going on”
LOL
And then, as we wanted to lighten up our ‘heated’ conversation..he said…”You know what? Let those guys pick out shoes for the first lady or something”
ROFL…yeah…I married a manly man and he is not amused by my arguments.
I apologize to jetboy because I’m still not totally convinced of his arguments….
I just had to share~
It reminds me of when My Father used to get angry that they were letting women into West Point…..and of course, my hubby reminded me again, THEY DON’T GO INTO COMBAT.
(Very funny words coming out of this Marine Man here, but I cannot share or I might get banned..lolol)
I’ve gotta take his word for it. I’ve gotta do it. Although, I did say that if I were in combat, I’d want 20 PMSing women behind me…not men. LOL
bridgetown on January 25, 2010 at 10:06 PM
I guess the O-Team thinks they’re gonna need to shore-up the pole-smoker/Butch crowd.
Tough times…tough times…….
JoeinTX on January 25, 2010 at 10:15 PM
It increased over the preceding decades, according to a CDC report published September 15, 2005.
If there are Papal stats showing it was even more popular in the 1600s, my point remains that straight couples find pleasure in the excretory orifice. Always struck me as not worth the mess, especially when there is a vagina right there but some couples apparently dig it.
dedalus on January 25, 2010 at 10:16 PM
I find it interesting that you can’t give blood donations if you’ve had sex with another man even once since 1977, but hey welcome to the front lines, where men could wind up bleeding all over each other! I’d say the PC nonsense papering over the AIDS epidemic is as disastrous (and as costly in terms of lives lost) as the PC that papered over that Sgt. who shot up Fort Hood.
And I’ll note that the comment section has officially gone off the deep end in terms of vulgarity. I guess this affirms, once again, that very few HA faithful are actually “conservative” as much as they are libertarian. Is it too much to ask, in this internet age, that we try to restore some dignity around here?
cackcon on January 25, 2010 at 10:19 PM
It increased over the preceding decades, according to a CDC report published September 15, 2005.
If there are Papal stats showing it was even more popular in the 1600s, my point remains that straight couples find pleasure in the excretory orifice. Always struck me as not worth the mess, especially when there is a vajeyena right there but some couples apparently dig it.
dedalus on January 25, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Yikes. I, for one, am so sorry if I offended. .and I’m pretty sure I did…apologies.
bridgetown on January 25, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Obama loathes the military, doesn’t he?
OldEnglish on January 25, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Oh gosh! He is less than 50 miles from the DMZ…and my ex is a Navy veteran…so whatevah!
My son has been raised on conservative values, he single-handledly debunked global warming and other such liberal sh!t in high school…so don’t you judge his “culture”, you dumb ass. The important thing is that he has people to cover his ass…and neither HE or I care if those people are gay or straight.
Get it?
ladyingray on January 25, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I actually think most people would be surprised at how they voted…
ladyingray on January 25, 2010 at 10:37 PM
As someone who has a son in the military, I must respectfully disagree. My son really couldn’t care less if DADT is repealed, as long as the man/woman beside him is willing to fire their weapon to save his six…
ladyingray on January 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM
You’re well within the usual bounds for HA. It’s the crude sexual references we could do without. I mean, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere.
cackcon on January 25, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Do it, O’Bozo, you hilarious clown. The military already hates you more than they hated Clinton.
Jaibones on January 25, 2010 at 10:44 PM
Here’s my question: what’s wrong with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Keep it to yourself and we won’t have any problems. I care not to know the sex lives of any of my Soldiers, gay or straight.
Send_Me on January 25, 2010 at 10:45 PM
What an absolute moron.
What’s your “risk assessment” like for treating a black soldier? They have much higher rates of HIV than the general population as well.
crr6 on January 25, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Doofpundit again making himself out to be a doofus. Nice job not quoting the poll of military who oppose repealing DOTD. It’s still solidly against it.
TTheoLogan on January 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM
So your son is OK with joe shmoe staring at his johnson in a community shower, which is pretty common? How about being forced to share a room with him? Better yet, how about having to hot bunk with him on a submarine?
Oh that’s right, you can turn off sexual attraction like a switch, nevermind. Remind me to use that line the next time I want to take a shower near a girl and she has a problem with it.
TTheoLogan on January 25, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Well, that’s the thing. Your son couldn’t care less. I was specifically referring to people like Carl Levin, Obama, Kerry, &c that believe the military needs to be transformed into an aid-deploying machine. One that teaches political correctness over security strategy. The military has already become too PC. I say, leave this decision up to the military instead of interfering at the Congressional or Presidential level.
MeatHeadinCA on January 25, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Well, that explains a great deal. You ain’t ever looked there really close have you dude?
MikeA on January 25, 2010 at 10:53 PM
They’ve already done polls in the military showing that many would not reenlist if this comes to pass. It will be nothing but a huge political action. There’s a reason that homosexuals demand to be open about their homosexuality in the military, and it’s not a good one.
TTheoLogan on January 25, 2010 at 10:54 PM
I would say to Carl Levin and Obama…
would you mind if I watched your daughter take a shower? I promise, I will turn off my sexual attraction switch during.
Oh wait, you’re wanting to put me and other military personnel in that situation with a homosexual, but not for you…
TTheoLogan on January 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM
I can already foresee the tons and tons of mandatory sensitivity training sessions that will be coming down the pipeline.
TTheoLogan on January 25, 2010 at 10:56 PM
Good freakin’ point.
What a mess all of this is.
bridgetown on January 25, 2010 at 10:57 PM
The problem is that they cannot state that they are gay, period. It isn’t just a rule that says they can’t discuss it on duty, or while deployed. They aren’t allowed to tell anyone in their life, unless that person can be sworn to secrecy.
I don’t have a strong objection to restrictions on gays being deployed in certain circumstances, because of the issue of forced intimacy of living in close quarters. But it is understandable why someone would have difficulty following DODT while being gay and in the military.
Probably the best solution is to allow service in some areas that don’t lend themselves to the kind of close-quarters environment. Or better, eliminate DODT, but replace it with a law allowing the military chiefs to use their discretion, so that any changes can be done as gradually as possible, or not at all, as the military sees fit.
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 11:00 PM
actually, I’m “A” sexual…like a tree.
royzer on January 25, 2010 at 11:13 PM
royzer on January 25, 2010 at 11:18 PM
OK, so it polled well everywhere except where it matters.
Did anybody think to poll among people who are actually serving or served recently? Demographics of thought may not be identical among those who never considered serving and those who have.
Maybe we could have a new fighting unit and call them something cool like ‘The Immortals’ or ‘The Ten Thousand’?
These units in history terrified their enemies…
ElRonaldo on January 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM
Actually, I’ve seen some Steers try to get it on… uh… very unsuccessfully. Can you blame them? They lost their marbles – poor guys ;)
MeatHeadinCA on January 25, 2010 at 11:26 PM
You are very stupid or never seen a Womans vagina. Urine dose not come out the same hole that you insert your penis. Also Urine is clean and can be used as a disinfectant, Shit is full of nasty germs that can kill you.
Ed Laskie on January 25, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Actually, there are hundreds of species that exhibit homosexual behavior.
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 11:33 PM
What would be so bad about a gay-only platoon?
Worked in Sparta.
Oh, and for all the MANLY MEN afraid of a gay dude checking out your pecker, if you played any high school sports or had to use open showers after a gym class or at a gym/spa or other environment, there’s a 99% chance you’ve already showered with a gay guy.
Good Solid B-Plus on January 25, 2010 at 11:35 PM
I think they meant male on female anal intercourse. I’m not sure if any other animals exhibit that type of behavior in the wild. IIRC, there are a few other animals that actually engage in oral sex.
Good Solid B-Plus on January 25, 2010 at 11:36 PM
This is an issue of sleeping and showering together. Men and Women have separate facilities. In Boot camp you are pushed up next to one another in a line, “nut to butt” I would be very uncomfortable feeling the guy behind me getting an erection. Why do Gays have to define them selfs as such. They should be solders not Gay Solders. I don’t have any thing against a person being Gay, I have an issue of going around and telling every one they are Gay. Is that the total essence of who they are? Just shut up and keep your sex life to your self. Why do they feel compelled to announce that they are Gay? Do heterosexuals go around and say “Hi my name is tom and I’m strait? In military going around telling everyone your Gay is disruptive and not necessary. There is no reason they have to make the announcement other than to be disruptive.
Ed Laskie on January 25, 2010 at 11:43 PM
The prohibition isn’t against making some grand announcement, it is against stating that you are gay, to anyone, anywhere. That includes while you are at home, off duty, with friends, even gay friends. Wanting to tell gay friends that you are also gay is not disruptive (I agree, though, that the close quarters business is a legitimate issue).
RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2010 at 11:52 PM
In special forces you are trained if necessary, if wounded away from any immediate medical help, to pee on your wound as a disinfectant.
ALSO ON ANOTHER SUBJECT-
Some monkeys have been observed and also mice under stress conditions of over crowding have been observed in homosexual behavior.
Ed Laskie on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM
It has been observed in Bonobos.
Holger on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Your probably right, but you then don’t have to go home and eat and sleep in the same room with them, watch shows that arouse them, or view the posters they have on their walls, or see the magazines they read.
journeyintothewhirlwind on January 26, 2010 at 12:15 AM
It takes no balls whatsoever for Obama to do this. But I hope he goes through with it.
He’ll get little resistance from the left. Evangelicals and right-wingers will protest positing countless versions of “tradition” and “it doesn’t fit.” Life goes on.
The Race Card on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 AM
I was inferring the “intent on gaining sexual pleasure from the act of anal intercourse” which NO species exhibit…except the “all intelligent” human.
royzer on January 26, 2010 at 12:23 AM
x 365days. And don’t even think about requesting changing your schedule so that you don’t have to work together.
And if your on the football team- you have the option to quit- no harm, no foul. Can’t really up and quit on a 4 /6 year army committment.
And if your uncomfortable with someone at the local gym? you can either adjust your workout time or find another gym or buy home exercise equipment. You don’t get to sign up for a special straights only time in the shower.
journeyintothewhirlwind on January 26, 2010 at 12:25 AM
so let me get this straight gays serving secretly are cool but gays serving openly are a danger…
seems like discrimination by the dumbest
Zekecorlain on January 26, 2010 at 12:27 AM
um so lets see people that joined under the option that gays have to serve secretly are up in arms that gays could serve openly…..
hmm what makes more sense medically or morally ur going to serve with people lying about their status than with people telling their medical status openly … yeah your discrimination makes total sense
Zekecorlain on January 26, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Look up Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Sodomy is still a felony for military personnel.
All DADT does is provide V Amendment rights to those breaking that LAW.
It would take Congress to change the law, the President does not have that perogative.
Somehow, I do not think the congress-critters that have been blaming the Military for their law are going to do it. After all, sodomy has been a crime for the US Military since this country declared independence and congress has avoided doing anything to change that…
DJ Elliott on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 AM
No, most Gays serving in the Military serve with the understand that the Military has a very specific code of conduct. They understand implicitly that there are some behaviors that are acceptable and compatible with military life and that some behaviors are not. The last thing we need is to have active duty service members prancing around in bondage gear down main street during off duty hours.
Dragoonchris on January 26, 2010 at 12:47 AM
Ed- What happen to my medical explanation of why Gays enjoy anal sex?
Ed Laskie on January 26, 2010 at 12:48 AM
You’re a stain and you give the right a bad name.
The Race Card on January 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Wrong. That behavior has been observed in high order primates such as the Bonobo.
Holger on January 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Consider for a moment what happens when PFC Joe Somebody see’s his squad leader on the evening news during pride week.
Dragoonchris on January 26, 2010 at 12:59 AM
You really think that the type of gays who serve in the military are going to be in the Folsom Street Fair?
Come on, man.
Good Solid B-Plus on January 26, 2010 at 1:30 AM
Does it explain heterosexual males who enjoy anal sex with women? Because frankly, I don’t get the appeal.
Good Solid B-Plus on January 26, 2010 at 1:31 AM
so NOW I can join the Army, now that I’m 52. Thanks – so – much.
leftnomore on January 26, 2010 at 1:31 AM
You have an extremely stereotypical view of gay men.
The Race Card on January 26, 2010 at 1:40 AM
Nothing like a good first-hand explanation.
The Race Card on January 26, 2010 at 1:42 AM
We Hope for the best but plan for the worst.
I live in the Seattle area and have had the distinct un-pleasure of being in the Capital Hill neighborhood after dark on a Saturday night.
Dragoonchris on January 26, 2010 at 1:53 AM
The plain fact is that the physical structure of the human being is a joke in itself: a flat, crude, unanswerable disproof of any nonsense about “intelligent design.” The reproductive and eliminating functions (the closeness of which is the origin of all obscenity) were obviously wired together in hell by some subcommittee that was giggling cruelly as it went about its work.
- Christopher Hitchens
MB4 on January 26, 2010 at 2:14 AM
I served in the Air Force and retired in 2000. The policy up to that time was to test everyone who had orders to go overseas. It may have changed now but that is what it used to be. If a person moved around from one stateside base to another, he or she may not have gotten an AIDS test. But if you went even temporary duty somewhere outside the CONUS, you were tested. If you were positive you weren’t allowed to go. Later the A.F. started discharging people with HIV.
Bill R. on January 26, 2010 at 2:25 AM
The problem with repealing DADT is not with those in the war but with those at their home bases in garrison. There will be problems, mark my words. And someone else in the thread is correct, congress must repeal DADT not the president.
Bill R. on January 26, 2010 at 2:31 AM
It would seem to me that there are soldiers, and activists.
The one is no good to the other.
OldEnglish on January 26, 2010 at 2:36 AM
Your sex-life is irrelevant to this discussion.
The Race Card on January 26, 2010 at 2:49 AM
I can’t wait for gay heritage month like the military has for every other victim group in the world. That should be very interesting indeed: Sir, why can’t we book Cher and have a LGBT night at the NCO Club?
I’m glad I’m retiring. This is going to get really interesting for Commanders.
jwp1964 on January 26, 2010 at 2:49 AM
Ha, fair enough. Left myself open for that one.
Dragoonchris on January 26, 2010 at 2:58 AM
And when the mid-level NCO’s choose not to re-up. This is what we call a leadership challenge.
Dragoonchris on January 26, 2010 at 3:01 AM
It seems to me that Republicans and conservatives should have no impulse to impose their own sexual mores upon gays. Republicans love to trumpet the party’s role as a champion for American civil rights. Yet the vile-bile found in every thread related to homosexuality perpetuates an environment that is hostile toward gays.
The fact that so many Republicans
missavoid the opportunity to stand against gay prejudice and bigotry is woeful, pathetic. Republicans are just like the leftist nanny-staters in that a majority seek to impose their values on other peoples’ lives, freedom be damned.The Race Card on January 26, 2010 at 4:00 AM
This is not about gay prejudice, this is about the overall effectiveness of our nations military. Homosexual behavior and even rumored homosexual behavior corrodes unit cohesion like very few things can. During a time of war we cannot afford to create another sub-group within our ranks, we have too much of that already. Tensions already run high in operational military units and there is no fathomable reason why the leadership ought to add another stresser.
Dragoonchris on January 26, 2010 at 4:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »