Confirmed: Obama to call for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” tonight
posted at 7:30 pm on January 27, 2010 by Allahpundit
As I said on Monday when I wrote about this, the politics of it are a no-brainer. And getting to be more so every day: If you believe Michael Barone, the Dems are now staring not at a 1994 wave but possibly a 1974 wave, when congressional Republicans were obliterated by the deep blue tide that washed in after Watergate. If they don’t repeal this soon, they may not have the votes to try again for a long time.
Even if you disagree with rescinding the policy, take comfort in knowing that the roll call in the House and Senate will be pure fun to watch. I’m sure they’ll have some bipartisan support for doing it; the question is how much — and how many skittish Blue Dog “no” votes will have to be replaced. Exit question one: Is The One going to demand any deadline for doing this or will it be another of his “no, really, soon” promises? Exit question two: John Shalikashvili already weighed in on Obama’s side earlier today. Can Colin Powell be far behind?
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 5 Next »
Funniest. Comment. Ever.
WaltzingMtilda on January 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM
door, public showers are still pretty common in the military, or at least having to be publicly nude around members of the same sex, and even sleep near them, is fairly common.
once you introduce homosexuality into that mix, you better believe some conservative 17 year old from rural iowa is going to have some problems being near a homosexual guy who is checking him out.
And for anyone who says that won’t happen, I’d ask for you to let me watch any random woman take a shower if I promise I’ll turn off my “sexual attraction switch” before I do.
TTheoLogan on January 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM
The idea that the military CAN except civilian social norms begs the question why there are military regulations in the first place. Why are their hair regulations? Why are their uniform regulations? To create unit cohesiveness. If social norms are so easily digested, let’s have Michael Moore be the paragon of the military fighting man. He can wear a Hawaiian shirt with mustard stains and his hair to his ass. Individuality is ruthlessly bred out of men in Marine Corps boot camp because individuals do not fight well in groups. A marine platoon is a unit. It relies on the abiding fraternity of its members. You cannot arrange a fail-safe way to implement Don’t Ask, DO tell. There will be catastrophic failures at your most elemental level: the fighting Marine Corps platoon.
nico on January 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM
His mental gyrations make my brain hurt….
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM
No, I’m saying that there’s going to be a conflict between Islamists and gays. They’re two protected classes that don’t mix.
(I’m reminded of The Far Side cartoon with the caption: “Zzylork, you’ve mixed incompatible species in the Earth terrarium!”)
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Right, because saying “I know some nice gays, therefore we should repeal DADT!” is the 400 level philosophy argument of the day.
TTheoLogan on January 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM
and again….except = accept. I’m going home now. To eat dinner. Without typos.
nico on January 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Can the gay guy remain professional enough not to attempt to seduce the conservative 17 yr-old? I mean sexual harassment is sexual harassment.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM
I’m out. I think Obama could care less what he does to the military, anyway. Out
TTheoLogan on January 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM
I can tell you with 100% confidance that this will never happen. The black community didn’t vote for Obama’s stance on universal healthcare, or his anti-war sentiment, or any other policy– they voted for the first black president. Black Americans who aren’t ordinarily involved in politics will be much less likely to vote next time around, but those that do will invariably choose whatever is marked (D).
Being a (half) black conservative is difficult. Sure, we get to claim Thomas Sowell and Allen West, but other than that, it’s slim pickings for a cultural representative.
TL;DR version: Black people don’t care about DADT.
RachDubya on January 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM
I think what she’s saying is that when you’re in a fight, it doesn’t matter what the hell that guy or gal is who’s got your 6. And you’d protect them, too.
Even Goldwater said that the only thing that matters is can the soldier shoot straight.
As for me, I’m kind of for the GAWT policy. If you’re a GAY ASKING me for sex, I WON’T TELL… where your body’s buried.
TXUS on January 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Obama Calls for Repealing Military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy and Applying It Instead to Health Care Legislation Talks
Mervis Winter on January 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM
LOL. I was actually slightly kidding on that post. (Should’a used the /sarc tag, sorry.) I do remember that Far Side cartoon you’re referencing.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Can the straight 19 year old boy ordered to share a shower with a straight 19 year-old girl resist it? Or vice versa?
Or does the gay 18 year old private want to be the subject of a come-on by a gay 25 year old Lt or Captain? (Or Ensign or Lt Jg, etc.)
Yes, it is sexual harassment. Now why would someone want to create a situation where that becomes so constantly prevalent?
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Is it me or did this guy not say anything substantial for several hours.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Resist? Yes. Just because they are both straight, doesn’t mean they will actually want to do it.
Also, a gay officer who comes on to a straight enlisted has much more to worry about than sexual harassment. (Conduct unbecoming, fraternization, etc.)
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Hey, those are two damn good representatives!
Don’t forget Zo & Sonya, even if they don’t carry Sowell or West’s weight. And also don’t forget Thomas, who must find it odd to know that the DHS secretary is the same “woman” who went after him about BSing with his own secretary.
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Also, that’s probably happening now under DADT. Those durn homosexuals are managing to keep it in check somehow.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Hey, those are two damn good representatives!
Don’t forget Zo & Sonya, even if they don’t carry Sowell or West’s weight. And also don’t forget Thomas, who must find it odd to know that the DHS secretary is the same “woman” who went after him about BSing with his own secretary.
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM
I don’t mean to discount any of those mega-super-awesome examples, I just mean that for each Zo, there’s dozen Jesse Jackson types.
RachDubya on January 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Gee pal, I was in one of those showers today. Re-read my entry. The showers aren’t the problem; the gays are out-numbered there as they are everywhere. I know of no instance of homosexuals murdering or raping straights in the military. Not even that “conservative seventeen year-old” (quite the vivid imagination you’ve got there) is at risk -the gay man is. That’s the problem -wasted time, energy, and resources- all to defend an advocate who serves a cause other than what he pledged himself to.
Doorgunner on January 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Ugh, forgot to add quote tags in the excitement.
HA has a fever, and the only cure is
more cowbellthe SOTU drinking game.RachDubya on January 27, 2010 at 9:18 PM
“Blame bush”-drink!
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM
So why don’t we just integrate school locker rooms, too? Maybe make all public bathrooms for all genders simultaneously? San Francisco does it, right? They’re a model of success, right?
Like it or not, humans are sexual beings – procreation drives our motives, and even if gays assign it to their own gender (be it biological or psychological, whatever) – it’s one of the great causes of stress between humans.
You may be missing the point that 19 year-olds, even after training, don’t turn into stone-faced discipline machines. And no, I don’t expect the gal to go along with it – but I do expect there to be the standard 10% that will. And that’s a whole can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened.
The military’s function is to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What part of that mission is enhanced by creating greater problems between people working together? The possible gain can at most be zero – as the argument is gays are just as good as straights. The potential loss – as in the breakdown of discipline, the additional stress, the time spent on EEO bullsh*t, the logistics, and as well the leftist desire to warp the US military culture (distinctly opposed to that of ancient Greece) is nothing but a possible loss.
So what’s the point?
Somebody mentioned this earlier, but I do want to know what the other hand’s doing. Because while he’s giving the gay public a reach-around, he’s surely going to give it to us all in the end.
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM
And so what? There are official consequences to any actions like that, as well as social consequences as it’s not accepted.
“durn” Heh. You used polysyllabic words afterwards and forgot to drop your “g” off “managing”.
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Is this a big deal with the gay community? My sister is gay and ultra liberal and I assume I would have heard her crab about this by now if it was…Bush that was implementing it!
gophergirl on January 27, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Finished for you
Not to bust on your sis, but if she is a far leftist, it is a safe bet !
cableguy615 on January 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM
And she was probably a moderate before he came into office, so her move to the left was also Bush’s fault.
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM
And there’s not social and legal consequences if we allow openly gay service members? You are saying that they will hold themselves back now because it is illegal for them to make unwanted sexual sexual advances and they will not refrain once they are allowed to serve openly…. and unwanted sexual advances are still illegal? Or is it that they are not attracted to men/women because of DADT and that will suddenly change once it is reversed?
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:42 PM
I’m sorry, I can’t discuss this anymore. this SOTU speech is really making me mad.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Here comes the Pink Brigade !
“Sorry son. We’re going to have to amputate that leg of yours in these battlefield conditions. It’s just too far gone after you were hit with that IED. Oh, and we can’t ask who you’re getting your blood transfusions from either for legal reasons – don’t you know? Hopefully none of them are from one of our homosexual soldiers back from shore leave where he spent the whole weekend at a bathhouse. We’ll test you for HIV here in a couple of weeks though – just to make sure. Good luck !”.
BowHuntingTexas on January 27, 2010 at 9:49 PM
I got tested the other day. Happens regularly in the military.
Also, blood donations are checked for HIV and other diseases as par for the course.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM
This is nothing more than a “bone” [pun intended] tossed at the rabble over at the DailyKOS, who are in a state of conniption over the Obamessiah’s recent failures.
They aren’t concerned with unemployment, as they inhabit their parent’s basements. This repeal is aimed directly at the source of their political philosophy.
DeathB4Tyranny on January 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Might want to check up on incubation periods for HIV. Read somewhere it upwards of 6 months.
BowHuntingTexas on January 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Well, I feel safe knowing that NO one in the military has ever or will ever have HIV from heterosexual relations.
Dude, did you just wake up from the 1980′s or what?
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Well, I feel safe knowing that NO one in the military has ever or will ever have HIV from heterosexual relations.
Dude, did you just wake up from the 1980′s or what?
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Sorry for the double post everybody.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:07 PM
There are more consequences now. Plus there’s the social ostracism. It’s an important thing. Already went over some of it here.
Are you/have you served? And if so, who with? I think opinions vary considerably depending on one’s experiences. Maybe in your unit, you think it’d work. It wouldn’t work in mine, and my unit would be hurt for it. I can say the same about many, if not all, of the units I served alongside.
…
Do you have an answer for this?
Specifically, it introduces new stress, with zero potential for gain (beyond political leftys patting themselves on the back) and great potential for loss to the military’s efficiency and conduct. So, as I asked here, what’s the point?
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM
And how well do you think it’s going to play the first time that does happen? Try telling BowHunting that everything’s cool after a couple troops do get bad transfusions.
Heck, look at what happened when one guy died from the Antrax vaccine.
What’s the potential gain for national security? How does the military get more efficient or protect the nation better by introducing a new stress?
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Damned lack of preview function working!
10:14 should add “or any troops with BH’s opinions”.
CPL 310 on January 27, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Oh goody GOODY, I can’t WAIT to be in the Army… I’ll be the bell of the BALL back at the club.
leftnomore on January 27, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Look here’s what I’m saying: I don’t care if you are gay or straight. Having gay people in the military is a fact of life. repealing DADT doesn’t (in my opinion) affect anything other than the fact that they won’t be thrown out simply for being gay. Being gay doesn’t predispose someone to preposition a junior to have gay sex. What get’s me irritated are these statements that gays will run amok in the military and straight service members won’t be able to handle it. The UCMJ will still be in effect no matter what. (FYI, sodomy is illegal in the UCMJ). BowHuntingTexas was insinuating that if DADT is repealed then we’ll be transfusing our troops with HIV+ blood. That doesn’t happen now. I mean straight people get HIV, too, right?
I agree that it will present a problem. I’m only saying that saying that the problem will be a gay guy who can’t help but sexually assault his shipmates is a huge generalization and ignores the many service members gay and straight that remain professional in all circumstances.
Also, the military isn’t all group showers. I’ve taken group showers but by and large on ship and shore, we use our own showers.
To answer your question, I am currently serving.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:19 PM
I don’t understand why any openly gay male would want to join the military. It doesn’t appear to be the type of organization that a gay person would feel comfortable. I’m not in the military, but it appears to be an environment that is one big ocean of testosterone…and all that entails.
ramrants on January 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Question: Do straight people get HIV?
Question: Do people in the military get HIV?
Question: How many people since 1995 have received HIV infected blood transfusions.(Excluding Eric Cartman)
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Good, about the only promise I was not pissed off about.
Squid Shark on January 27, 2010 at 10:34 PM
I know you can’t believe everything on the net but for what it’s worth …
Weekend 1 – homosexual soldier spends weekend at a bathhouse while on leave.
Day 2.5 – after the 10 – 20 unknown partners the homosexual soldier has been with while at the bathhouse he donates blood.
Weekend 2 – another soldier under battlefield conditions needs immediate operation and receives blood transfusions from homosexual soldier. Can’t ask to know the history of whose blood he’s getting – legal reasons and all that.
Hmmm. All sorts of things that may not be caught in the blood testing of the homosexual donor’s blood in 2.5 days after the bathhouse.
BowHuntingTexas on January 27, 2010 at 10:38 PM
All of these things could happen today in the military, either from a gay soldier or a straight one.
HIV is a concern today in the military, that is why they are tested annually and before they deploy into a combat zone.
Not even a remotely good argument unless you are trying to pretty up the fact that you just dont like dem homos.
Squid Shark on January 27, 2010 at 10:44 PM
In that case, we are all in trouble because that will also apply to the entire blood supply of the U.S.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:46 PM
LOL. Man your hypothetical gay soldier gets around fast! I wish I had his luck with women!
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:48 PM
One last thing before I head out. Despite what some have said, the military doesn’t take group showers all the time. I use the shower in my apartment and I don’t have anybody else in there (small enough as it is). This isn’t Starship Troopers people.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:51 PM
‘Night everybody!
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Thanks, btw.
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Good points. Too bad we can’t get back to the good’ol days when homosexuality was defined as a form of insanity – before activists and liberal judges changed the definition. If nothing else it should be outlawed (or at least discouraged) for health reasons. Perhaps we wouldn’t have so many AIDS cases if it was? Just asking. Never mind. Let’s teach kids starting in kindergarten it’s just A-OKAY.
Maybe you can request you or anyone in your family gets all their blood transfusions from only homosexuals the next time you or they need a major operation?
BowHuntingTexas on January 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM
“One last thing before I head out. Despite what some have said, the military doesn’t take group showers all the time. I use the shower in my apartment and I don’t have anybody else in there (small enough as it is). This isn’t Starship Troopers people.”
Rightwingguy on January 27, 2010 at 10:51 PM
———————————————–
Unless you’re in Basic Training or near a combat zone. How many soldiers get “apartments” when they’re overseas, say in Iraq or Afghanistan? This might fly for CONUS postings, like in DC, and it may actually make requests for duty to Europe increase.
Maybe you have(had)BOQ, but us grunts had to share the showers everyday. In the field, you are lucky to get a shower. Did you ever have to wash your junk with a bit of water out of your steel-pot in front of everyone?
shorebird on January 28, 2010 at 12:13 AM
There already are gays in the military, some “out” to friends, many not.
The percentage of military members who are freaked out about gays in the military is getting smaller and smaller every year.
DADT is a much better alternative to what we had before: OSI/CID/NCIS undercover agents sitting in gay or other-wise cool bars hoping to catch a servicemember making out with someone of the same sex. At least now, the only way to get kicked out for being gay is by telling your commander you’re gay.
mjtyson on January 28, 2010 at 12:14 AM
“There already are gays in the military, some “out” to friends, many not.
The percentage of military members who are freaked out about gays in the military is getting smaller and smaller every year.
DADT is a much better alternative to what we had before: OSI/CID/NCIS undercover agents sitting in gay or other-wise cool bars hoping to catch a servicemember making out with someone of the same sex. At least now, the only way to get kicked out for being gay is by telling your commander you’re gay.”
mjtyson on January 28, 2010 at 12:14 AM
———————————————
LOL! … “in gay or other-wise cool bars?” Hmmm…
Actually, they only really bothered if one had a security clearance. I still think that the practice is merited.
shorebird on January 28, 2010 at 12:37 AM
Who cares? Let them serve, as long as it doesn’t impact their duties as soldiers, I don’t see the problem with it. There are more important issues to talk about now….some of Obama’s czars are open communists! They adore Mao and Lenin and want to abolish free speech. Where are the blog posts about Cass Sunstien? Do you people realize that our country has been taken over by a GANG from Chicago?
nazo311 on January 28, 2010 at 2:11 AM
oh hell no
There is no way this should be repealed.
Once it becomes acceptable to be gay in the military the floodgates will open and floridly gay behavior will have to be tolerated just as it is in non-military society. Gays will start claiming they are not being treated equally if one of them is ordered to walk point and a cascade of bullsh*t will inevitably erode morale.
DaMav on January 28, 2010 at 2:56 AM
Your opinion has ignored all the other social factors that have been brought up here. It’s not about the buttseks, it’s about the stresses brought on by having one more emotional and social complication.
Proposition, not preposition. Are you reading what’s been wrote (or were you, as you said you called it a night)? There’s a cultural barrier of chivalry, especially in the military, between men and women, that helps smooth out some problems. There is not an established societal protocol for the same between gays and straights. It can create a major increase in tension and destroy a unit’s cohesion. Also, guys are animals – ask any woman about it. Guys going after other guys are (not always, but often) something else as well. When you’ve had a girl describing walking into a chow hall and feeling like she’s “on the menu”, maybe you’ll develop some empathy.
Yes and so what? BowHunt’s attitudes are ones that will crop up. One or two bad incidents and you have a major discipline problem that’s reinforced by negatives.
THEN WHY DO IT?
There’s zero possible benefit other than making leftist activists feel good. Gays can already serve, they just don’t advertise it.
Go back and read.
A gay serviceman who makes an admission to a fellow serviceman is going to create strife. Saying “I like like you” to another serviceman who you then have to be in very close proximity to is just as bad as “I like like you” to a female servicewoman who doesn’t feel comfortable with it. Difference is that with the man and woman, there’s already a chivalry and gender divide protocol for them to work around each other without difficulty. When there’s a dude who thinks you look cute in your PT shorts next to you, it’s the same creepiness applied. There needn’t be any assault, there need only be an honest confession of feelings and rejection – which creates drama that no unit needs or benefits from.
No, it isn’t. But boot camp certainly isn’t going to be a picnic with any added stress of people dealing with their budding sexuality or machismo protection of their own pride. Nor does having cliques form within units (already happens by race/regional background).
The military is an organization that by its very nature is dedicated to competition and winning. It’s a high stress environment, and of necessity isn’t one that’s condusive to civilian niceties. Machismo is harnessed to produce warriors. With women troops, dedication to duty and aggression is honed just as much. Bringing in a factor that is going to cause strife by messing with gender roles, male and female strengths – is going to only hurt the organization.
And there’s a reason I asked in what unit or type of unit. If you’re a postal clerk or a cook or an air mechanic or an admin pogue, your experience is likely very limited. If you’re a grunt or arty or the pointy end of the spear, I’d be very surprised you’d hold such an opinion.
You’re trying to be open-minded, but you’re letting your brains fall out on this one.
Yes.
Yes.
So what? It only takes one or two incidents to wreck a unit’s morale. Like I said, the anthrax vaccine death was one guy (AF captain, I think) – and everybody freaked out.
Is there any benefit to having openly gay servicemembers to the military? They can serve anyway – and when they’re settled into a unit that accepts that lifestyle, no one will care. So what’s the benefit, beyond leftists exchanging self-congratulatory smirks over cocktails?
CPL 310 on January 28, 2010 at 3:00 AM
Rightwingguy, go back and read a lot of what people wrote. It isn’t “oh noes i iz getn surprize miltary buttseks!1!!”, it’s a lot more concerns about breakdown of morale, EEO complaints, additional stresses and strifes, assaults on gays by those uncomfortable with them, and yes, assaults by gays on straights (which will happen, and which will be blown waaay out of proportion and set back acceptance of gays), drama inside units, requests for marriage (wait’ll that crops up), and a general breakdown of discipline.
We aren’t ancient Greece, we’re the US. Our marital culture is one of volunteering citizens to defend our homeland, mom, Mary Jane Rottencrotch and apple pie, and fight for freedom, not war for its own sake. We’re not hanging gays or wall-toppling them like in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Incidentally, the conflict between Islamic nations and gay US troops, or Islamic US troops and gay troops – hasn’t been explained yet. How is it a benefit to the gay troop to be outed? We can’t put JN3:16 on a rifle scope in a 10 point font, but openly gay troops will make good representatives in the Islamic world? If you were (or are) gay, would you want to be outed in front of your terp?
Can anyone come up with a single operational or strategic or tactical or any benefit (beyond making leftists feel good) from gays serving openly? (And again, they already do serve without advertising it, and it’s usually not a big deal.)
CPL 310 on January 28, 2010 at 3:16 AM
Obama ignores the American people and our troops.
According to the 2008, left leaning Military Times poll, approximately 60% of respondents are opposed to repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” When asked, “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?”,10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.”
It appears that the Obama’s have no problem being cheerleaders for homosexuals. Michelle Obama went out of her way to shake hands with the, Frank Kameny http://ronsuresha.com/?p=1798 , a man who believes all perversions are acceptable http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-icon-kameny-says-bestiality-ok-as-long-as-the-animal-doesnt-mind.html , and Mr. Obama is pushing his homosexual activist so-called “Safe School” czar on our children. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html
sinsing on January 28, 2010 at 6:44 AM
1) How do you define the MT as “left leaning”?
2) It takes about 30 years for the military to fully adjust to a social change. 15 years for most people in the military to have served with that group (blacks, women, gays) and then 15 more years for everyone to have served with someone in that group having served over them.
Squid Shark on January 28, 2010 at 7:15 AM
how about the guys in the military who are bi, or let’s say, who swing both ways…there are quite a few of those too, especially during long periods of deployments or confinements to the base, etc…it’s a fact that there’s such a category too…are they going to force those to declare their sexual orientation too? and what would they put on the card? ‘I swing both ways when I am on the road/deploy’… or what exactly? …seriously…will they be a ‘protected’ category too?
jimver on January 28, 2010 at 7:29 AM
Rosanne Barr, Rosie O’Donnel, Hillary Clinton?
MarkTheGreat on January 28, 2010 at 8:23 AM
So the Perez Hilton trolls have lost their militant homosexual agenda in every state, and now are turning their attention back to the military? It’s true their ARE gays in the military. There are also pedophiles, and all other manner of perversions both sexual AND moral. The SAME as in the civilian world. The military gays just don’t flaunt it or bring attention to it.
THE MILITARY IS A REFLECTION OF OUR SOCIETY.
Who projects American Rights and Freedoms more effectively to people who hate America just for existing?
The harder the left pushes the gay agenda on the military, the harder it will be for gays to serve. Too bad the left can’t be as tolerant as our military is today.
Roy Rogers on January 28, 2010 at 8:30 AM
This thread is a perfect picture of why this is a bad idea. Look at all the vitriol, wild speculations, arguing, etc. I want the military focused on killing the bad guys so my babies can sleep peacefully at night, not wrangling over who is gay and who isn\’t. DADT makes it so that no one has to think about it- sure people know their buddy might be gay, but they don\’t have to think about it- they can focus. You take away DADT and now everyone has to think about it. And talk about it, and worry about it. How about this- if you are gay, you go into an all gay unit! All the gays can fight together, and all the straights can fight together- we will have separate but equal units. Doesn\’t anyone one else notice that what Obama is doing is divisive? DADT made it so that we could be MORE inclusive of gays, not less. I don\’t understand what he is trying to accomplish, except that he is stupid beyond words.
Kristamatic on January 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM
Today’s commander’s are already devoting an inordinate amount of time dealing with non-mission related overhead, such as: EEO complaints, pregnancy, drugs, prostitution, sex rings, sexual harrassment. All of these things require the commander’s attention in both the adjudication as well as the preventative training…Pre-deployment briefs which should be mission oriented are often a laundry list of briefs on what not to do “boys and girls”…Repealing and effective policy “don’t ask don’t tell” will open up a whole new can of worms for commanders. Many of our best and brightest will choose different career paths as a result…Sad.
Nozzle on January 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Obama-mao should worry less about gays in the military and more about his “fisting czar” Kevin Jennings…Obama is the scum of the earth…
Nozzle on January 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM
Kristamatic, you’re totally right about Obama being a divisive figure. At times I was wondering myself if he’s actually trying his hand at some ‘divide et impera’ strategy/philosophy of sorts…but so far it rather backlashed, he only managed to unite people in their dislike and repudiation of him and his idiotic policies/agenda…And when you think that Stephanopoulos compared him the other day to Reagan and concluded that Obama is some sort of a… ummm…Reagan :-)…what sort of imbeciles these pundits are, really…Obama is comparable to Reagan????? only Stephanopolous can’t see the irony of that…
jimver on January 28, 2010 at 9:43 AM
“Submission Accomplished”
rocinaterider on January 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM
You gotta love how AllahPundit talks about the politics of the issue to avoid talking about the substance.
What do you think, AP? Is DADT a good policy or a bad one?
orange on January 28, 2010 at 12:57 PM
i didn’t realize that so many people ask the people who VOLUNTEER to risk their life who they slept with.
“excuse me before you block that bullet, I was curious if you could tell me if you were mormon. Can’t stand them, would much rather die than be saved by one”
sure many people are going to say that it’s about group cohesion, but that’s utter bs since gays are already there serving honorably and not raping their military compatriots. so that’s two down, and as for straights being freaked out, I don’t believe that they are given any rights to beat blacks, jews or muslims and yet the hypothetical corn belt recruit somehow manages to deal with all that just fine.
Grow up people and stop making excuses for your prejudice
Zekecorlain on January 28, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Where and when did you serve and in what capacity? Oh, and did you bother to read anything about unit cohesion at the platoon level? It doesn’t center around the fact that there are gays. It centers around that fact as to whether their is knowledge. Have you served in a platoon? Are you a war-time veteran? If so, what was your MOS? I hope you have served, because otherwise you’re exactly what you accuse others of: a child ignorant of facts.
I did my four years as a Marine Corps platoon leader. I am grown up. You?
nico on January 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM
The problem with homosexuals openly serving is it forces everyone else to except it as normal, which is Bull-Shovik!
Homosexuality isn’t normal and it’s a behavior so it CAN’T be compared to being black, jew…whatever.
There are plenty of people who use to be homosexual and don’t live that life style anymore.
Leave the military alone. If a person is too worried about their sexuality then don’t serve.
b1jetmech on January 28, 2010 at 5:27 PM
The problem with BowHunt’s argument is that it ignores all of the gay people in the civilian world that donate blood. If he is in fact correct, then I would rather die on the operating table due to exsanguination (how’s that for a big word. lol) than get a blood transfusion because of the danger of contracting HIV from all those dudes who have sex with 20+ random partners at bath houses.
Well, you see, the CiC just got on national television and said he wanted to do it. You might have caught it….. Last time I checked, Pres. Obama didn’t ask me or you what he thought we should do about DADT. What the Pres. says goes, whether we like it or not.
Look, I agree with you that it would create problems. These problems involve sexual harassment, restructuring the UCMJ to allow sodomy (otherwise openly gay soldiers would be in obvious violation of that), and lots of other stuff that you mentioned previously. That I agree with you 100%.
My point is that many people argue this from angles that don’t make any sense. For example:
1) Gay soldiers will get HIV and infect hetero soldiers.
2) Gay soldiers will want to wear women’s uniforms.
3) Gay officers will hit on enlisted.
4) The U.S. military will cease to be an effective fighting force.
Listen, my point is this, if DADT is repealed (and it hasn’t been as of yet) that the military will carry on and won’t be watered down. It will be a rough transition (if it actually does happen), but the military as a whole is a professional fighting force. They’re big boys and girls.
With all due respect, I’m trying to combat the “sky is falling” mentality. I’m not trying to candy-coat anything, just correct what I believe to be bad assumptions.
Uhm, I’m not sure they are fighting for Mary Jane Rottencrotch, thankyouverymuch. The repeal of DADT would effectively allow troops to serve and not be discharged for being gay. I’m not sure why you want to be an ambassador to the Islamic world, btw. Would the soldiers have to have little patches declaring them gay? If so, then I’d see how that could be a problem.
My intention was to let people know that the military doesn’t shower communally 100% of the time (since that seemed to be a great concern to a number of people). They actually do have shower stalls in lots of places.
Oh wow. That was produces quite the mental image…
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Oh wow. That opens a whole ‘nother can of worms!
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Tell me how this doesn’t make sense and be prepared to use first-hand knowledge to back it up. “My neighbor’s nephew in Afghanistan says he and his buddies are fine with it” isn’t knowledge. It’s an anecdotal absurdity.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM
And the lady with a son in the air force who only cares if they shoot straight was a laugher, too. I never saw an airman step outside a C-141 much less touch a weapon or sidearm.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM
First hand knowledge? O.k. I know lots of professional people in the military who could handle the challenge of dealing with a repeal of DADT should it occur.
LOL. Well, they are doing more stuff besides drinking coffee and fixing airplanes nowadays.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow, oh wow !
Like I said before, be sure and request only blood transfusions from homosexual males next time you or a family member needs major surgery.
I’m sure a soldier being operated on during battlefield conditions would request the same. “We’ll make sure you get blood transfusions only from homosexuals just back from the bathhouse … per your request”. /s
BowHuntingTexas on January 28, 2010 at 6:02 PM
I’ve been following your give and take with others and do not disgree with your arguements against some of the more outlandish claims. But, the mere fact that the subject is taboo gives a small fighting unit the opportunity for cohesion whether there is a gay member or not.
I mentioned earlier in this thread (or perhaps a related one) that I freely admit that I must have served unknowingly with gay men who deserved my fraternity. It’s not an issue as to whether they are or were gay. It is an issue of the impossibility of creating platoons with the right mix of known gays and straight men that wouldn’t destroy unit cohesiveness.
I’m sorry, but there are more testosterone-laden young men in the Marine Corps that absolutely would not abide a pro-gay implementation than you know. I didn’t care if my fellow marine was gay. I just didn’t want to know about it. The armed services should actually be commended as one of the more egalitarian institutions known to man. Minorities and women serve with honor, acknowledgement, upward mobility and well-earned respect.
I think implementation of this, however, would be nigh impossible and I know for a fact that as a general policy, it cannot be effective at the combat platoon level. The 1st loo isn’t around all that much to make sure that everybody plays nice. And, if he has to be, you don’t have a unit cohesion to begin with. You wouldn’t believe the vulgarity that occurs in a front-line fighting force. Nothing is sacred. Everything is skewered and homosexuality is among the most targeted. The stories I could tell……………….
nico on January 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM
Uhm. They don’t keep personal records of people who donate, only screen the blood for diseases. You are more than welcome to let the emergency room doctor know your preferences, though.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM
I agree with you that a whole lot of people will not be happy with this. Unfortunately, what the Commander-in-Chief says, goes. It’s an unfortunate fact that sometimes the CO does something you don’t like, but you have to move on and deal as best you can.
BTW, much thanks for your service, devildog.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Oh, and the vulgarity is called bonding. It is the act of ritually culling characteristic traditionally unknown to be warrior-like. That is an ethos that no social engineer can change.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM
I never saw an airman step outside a C-141 much less touch a weapon or sidearm.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Nico, you’re absoulutley right, my husband is in the Air Force currently, he’s an avionics spec, he worked on F-15 and currently on U2 and moving gradually to Global Hawk. They never carry a gun or anything of sorts. the only exception was in Afghanistan, when he was on a special mission there in 2006, he was given a gun then, but that was pretty much it…don’t ask me if he actually knew what to do with it lol :-) I hope he did :-) …yeah, they do train occasionally – shooting at target that is, like once a year :-), but nobody expect them to actually be good at that, or even get it right :-) in other words, they’re no ‘warriors’ :-) They are (high-)tech guys, pretty much it!
To Rightwingguy, hate to break your bubble, but yep, they do pretty much just that, fix planes (and I am not talking about pilots here), and they are quite good at it!! Don’t know about the coffee though (my husband hates coffee : ), but I’d say there isn’t much time on a shift for that, unless one works on U2 :-)
jimver on January 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM
LOL. You are correct.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM
No sweat. I had an absolute blast. I only left because I wanted an education.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM
I have some friends who are Air force, so I was being generous for their sake. :-) Shoot at least they aren’t Coast Guard!!
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM
lol :-)
jimver on January 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM
A lot of equip can’t make it from point A to point B without them and I knew a few that could bench press a house. Big men who took no sh*t. I certainly didn’t give them any. Choose your battles my father said.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Oh wow. That opens a whole ‘nother can of worms!
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM
b1jetmech on January 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Oh wow ! Uhm ! Oh wow ! Uhm !
How will the emergency room doctor know who he’s getting the donation from even if I let him know my preference since they don’t keep records of people who donate?
Will homosexuals have to wear a pink beret? Will their donation bags be marked with a pink “Q”? How will the doctor know whose blood he’s using? Like you said, there’s no record.
Read the incubation rates for STDs at the link in one of my previous posts. HIV? Upwards of 6 months before it can be found in the bloodstream.
I oppose open (or closed) homosexuality – period … for health reasons. In battlefield conditions a soldier should not have to worry about health consequences outside of battlefield injuries sustained if he / she needs a blood transfusion immediately.
Guess how many strains of HIV / AIDS there are now since the 80s? I’ll give you a hint – it’s more than 1. All avoidable had homosexuals not engaged in homosexual activity.
Now, stay with me. What happens if the next strain becomes communicable? You know? Spread like the common cold or the flu. We won’t have anyone to be in the military.
There’s no reason at all (in fact, it’s lethal) to promote / accept the homosexual lifestyle in the military, our schools, our jobs, in entertainment, etc. etc.
BowHuntingTexas on January 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM
“The Gayz” was a play on the word “gaze”. Whatever on-duty downtime was available meant groups of men with not much to do waiting for someone or something to move. There is a whole lot of hurry up and wait. The Gayz was a game whereby a marine would take anything that remotely resembled a phallus and hold it to his crotch. If he could get you to look, you committed a “Gayz” and were roundly ridiculed by anyone is close proximity. This is just one of many (and one of the most benign) little things that fighting men do to bond. To refute the “Other”. To set boundaries. To keep things in check. To cull unwarrior-like characteristics. Childish civilians might think it is, (and as a civilian, it is), but I’m willing to bet that there have been ritualistic games like this since the advent of war.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Childish, civilians might think it is….(the comma makes all the difference).
nico on January 28, 2010 at 6:55 PM
I agree. It’s a tragedy that those out on the battlefield can end up paying for someone’s sexual irresponsibility.
I’m really not that knowledgeable on how they test blood donations for STD’s. I know they do, however, I’m not sure if the tests they do are 100% effective or even if they do it more than once. America Red Cross’ website says :
I guess we can only hope they are extra-extra-super-positively sure.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 6:59 PM
If anyone else here can talk to me from experience about the marine combat ethos and how the disparaging of homosexuality is for all intents and purposes a rite, then let’s have at it.
Be advised however that extended whining by heterosexuals about Susie back home was equally disparaged.
As was any hint of cowardice.
The only thing sacrosanct was ethnicity – unless you were Irish or Polish in which case you were invariably known as Mac or Ski.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM
b1jetmech, Israeli military have allowed homosexuality in their ranks and those guys don’t strike me as ‘sissies’ or ‘not tough enough’, or anything like that :-) I know somebody on this thread made the comment that the Israeli military is a very particular case because of the situation they have to face daily there, they have a different mindset, the ‘toughness’ there is a survival tool and part of their culture so to say…gay or not, they’are all in the same boat there because they have to fight and protect lives as part of their daily existence …and I completely agree with that point of view, they are a very different case…but you can still look at it rationally and see how they managed the whole thing, how did the ‘integration’ process work, how it afefcted the morale of the troops or thier cohesiveness…I mean both practical and morale (psyhological) matters…it doesn’t hurt to take a look at it and at least see comparatively if/how it would work over here…
jimver on January 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Well, I can talk to you about the different uses of the “eff” word and how it can be used as an adjective, verb, pronoun, noun, and adverb all with slightly differing meanings. :-)
Anyway’s that’s why you never talk to a Marine about your problems. They will not sympathize. LOL.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM
We are not the Israelis as much as I support them.
Like I said before, homosexuality is a political issue. It is forced upon us when one state after another says NO! so libs will flank us and force it on our military. Israelis may be strong and can annihilate any nation in the region but they are protected by us just like Europe is.
I don’t intend to follow some country’s example, especially when it comes to homosexuals.
This nation became a super power in less then a 150 years and that was without homosexuals in the military. Now, we can see our nation die from within like…Rome?
So if we are going to end discrimination all together then let the fat people in the military. I know plenty of chunks who could run, do push-ups/set-ups,carry their own weight but were forced out because their waist was too big.
b1jetmech on January 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM
I only relate these things because there are too many people here with pie-in-the-sky attitudes towards this issue who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
It’s real comfortable to sit in Civilian City and rattle on about what should be acceptable and what can be implemented, and how childish it all is, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Boots on the ground, folks. Try a pair on. Then, we’ll talk. But, I bet you do a whole lot more listening.
nico on January 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM
What’s the saying that goes “If you want to understand a man, you should walk a mile in their shoes”?
Yep, true enough.
Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »