Gates and Mullen to testify about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” next week

posted at 6:58 pm on January 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

So that’s why the White House gave Carl Levin a heads up about the SOTU. They’re really going to move on it this time. Marc Ambinder:

Before President Obama announced last night that he would work with Congress and the Pentagon to end the military’s ban on service by gays and lesbians, the White House consulted Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to sign off on the language he planned to use, administration officials said. They did. “The Pentagon is with us,” the official said. And Geoff Morell, Gates’s spokesman, e-mails me to say that “The Department leadership is actively working on an implementation plan and will have more to say about it next week.” So — Obama’s pledge to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was more than words — he’s instructed the military to get it done as soon as Congress repeals the law. A Senate hearing is set for February 2, featuring testimony from Mullens= and Gates. An outside hearing is set for February 11.

Supposedly Levin isn’t sure if he has 60 votes. Will this end up being Scotty B’s first falling out with the conservative base? More from ABC:

Gates and Mullen are expected to discuss steps that the Pentagon would have to undertake internally before the White House and the Congress move to change the law. Gates has said in the past that changing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be a process that’s done “very very carefully” and in a way that mitigates any downsides…

A senior defense official says it’s likely that at the hearing, Gates will also discuss options, studied by the Pentagon’s General Counsel, about ways to ease punishments on gay servicemembers who were outed by a third party. Gates requested that the General Counsel look into the possibility last summer.

McCain put out a statement this morning saying the policy’s fine as is, but in a battle of military cred with the SecDef and Joint Chiefs chair on the other side, the GOP’s going to have to do better than Maverick. Can they? If you’re thinking of Colin Powell as some sort of ace in the hole, think again.

It’s time to poll this one. Exit question: If the Taliban is okay with having gays in the military, shouldn’t we be too?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 4

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Dude, it would take a lot and I mean A LOT to get me to quit.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM

lol. You’ve apparently never been in a love triangle. Watch the trash afternoon TV shows and see what kind of messes come up.

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

….my job. (Sorry)

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

And thank the lord almighty that I work during those hours. There is NOTHING good on between 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM

I believe that any person willing to serve their country and willing to put in the hard work should be allowed to do so.

They are allowed to do so now so your point is irrelevant. You are using the common ploy of most grievance groups, which is that anyone who disagrees with their assessment is somehow violating someone’s rights or is engaging in discrimination or bigotry.

echosyst on January 28, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:52 PM

lol. You’re funny.

Honestly though, don’t you think it would be borrowing trouble to put people in situations where they would have both temptation and permission to do something that could cause a lot of tension and turmoil within a situation where cohesiveness is absolutely vital?

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM

TTheologan:

By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I do appreciate your 7 years in the service. I wouldn’t have my awesome job today if it weren’t for people like you standing the watch.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I haven’t heard a good explanation as to why anyone needs to announce their sexual orientation in a military setting…

echosyst on January 28, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Because otherwise is pure bigotry. It’s living in the dim twilight, rather than being ‘enlightened’.

Among the Left, anything less than having it ‘all’ is called hate. Everyone has to suck it up (buttercup) because the Left is always proper and correct on matters of social justice and evolution.

Now stop offending liberals by asking prudent questions. You’re only going to upset them, and they can’t handle upsets.

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:00 PM

I wonder how many of the folks who voted no in the poll have served in the armed forces. I spent five years in the Marine Corps, and there were definitely guys who we all knew were gay. We made jokes from time to time, but they pulled their weight just like every other Marine. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is ridiculous, and Conservatives are going to hand Obama a big boost by trying to fight him on it.

Living4Him5534 on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Well, THAT I can definitely agree on. I think my dad got depressed just because he was watching the judge shows and got to see a part of humanity he’s never had to deal with – an ugly part where people don’t even act like people but more like animals. What makes people become like that?

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Hmmm. Here’s my policy. DADT has worked fine thus far (as far as keeping things on an even keel go). If the President decides to repeal it (well within his right) then the military will work hard to make it work. I hope that everything runs smoothly if it does happen, but like TTheologan has stated, it would percipitate a lot of problems.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Not everyone is like. Hey–what Branch? I’m former Air Force.

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:02 PM

I’m a squid.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Living4Him5534 on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Sounds like your experience shows that DADT has actually still allowed gays to be there and be respected. Why change it?

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Living4Him5534 on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

How about this, Marine:

I have no prob for the most part hearing how you punked some chick in her ass, but I don’t want to hear how some guy I know got punked in his.

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:09 PM

And sailors and marines have a reputation for being choirboys, just look at Fleet Week.

Squid Shark on January 28, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Care to show me where sailors and Marines have get togethers like Up Your Alley Fair?

These are not people I want to serve with, nor most military men I know…

Tim Burton on January 28, 2010 at 10:11 PM

For a very long time homosexuals have served with distinction without most if not all of their fellow service men and women not knowing any different.

Speakup on January 28, 2010 at 7:58 PM

So lets just keep it that way!

JellyToast on January 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM

I agree, I didn’t like it at the time but I think its one of the few things Clinton did right, don’t ask don’t tell just needs to be re-instituted.

Speakup on January 28, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

exactly my sentiment…not that’s untenable or unsolvable/unfixable or completely unpalatable :-)…. but why stirring things at this time…for what purpose? for Obama is all a political issue…a few bones thrown at his disgruntled far left electorate/supporters…the funny thing is that of those, probably only a small minority are actually gay…then why even bother…divert attention from important issues, I guess…and creating problms for a brach of the government that is doing perfectly fine as it is (I just named the military)…wait till he pushes the immigration reform, that’s where he’s going to get the big vote :-)

jimver on January 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Uh-oh former Air Force versus former Marine. I am SO staying out of this one!

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:14 PM

jimver on January 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Why oh why would politicians do something soley to provide themselves political cover or raise their popularity?

:-)

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Uh-oh former Air Force versus former Marine. I am SO staying out of this one!

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Bah! We’re on the same side. We can have a barroom brawl at 10:00 and be drinking together at a different bar by 10:15. And hiding each other from the MPs. It’s all good!

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Yeah. That’s why I hope he doesn’t mess with it.

justincase on January 28, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:17 PM

LOL. Yes. MP’s are the enemy of all.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:19 PM

LOL. Yes. MP’s are the enemy of all.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:19 PM

LOL That Marine wasn’t there and I didn’t do it! I swear on my mom’s grave! (nevermind she’s isn’t dead, but that’s another story)

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Rightwingguy,
how will he raise his popularity among the gay electorate? :-) it’s not that their allegiance has ever been anywhere else but to the left…besides, it doesn’t even bring him that many votes…disgruntled gays would still vote for a leftists prez no matter what…do there’s not much in it really ofr our ‘pragmatic’ prezidente :-)..it is a whole lot different with the illegals if he grants them amnesty…now that’s where the votes are going to pour in his direction :-(….

jimver on January 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:22 PM

I’m more of the “He did it! He did it! It wasn’t us!”

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM

jimver on January 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Politicians in my humble opinion are always looking for self-preservation.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:27 PM

And then we got what the Founders wanted: an end to slavery.

You are the one who brought all this up, knowing a few things already but going by your own prejudices anyway.

Why did you do that?

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM

I was responding to another comment citing the laws at the time of the founders.

There was an end to slavery but not in the lifetime of any of the founders. The son of one founder led the Confederate army–which would likely have denied equality to black people much longer had it won the war.

The Constitutional Convention involved much debate on slavery. Though some founders opposed slavery others, like Charles Pinkney, fought for provisions like the fugitive slave clause. Pinkney would continue to defend the practice of slavery or at least protect it from the laws of the federal government.

dedalus on January 28, 2010 at 10:27 PM

I’m more of the “He did it! He did it! It wasn’t us!”

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM

It was some civvie in a cowboy hat who ran like the wind. All I was doing was sipping suds. Yeah, I saw this Marine around but he was playing darts. Hey–can I get another beer?

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Pinkney would continue to defend the practice of slavery or at least protect it from the laws of the federal government.

dedalus on January 28, 2010 at 10:27 PM

For right or wrong, the issue of slavery was best kept out of the Constitution. Most Founders opposed it, which is the truest statement among them on the issue.

Basically, they were stuck. How best to forge a larger Nation, when half of the communities involved held to the idea it was fine to keep other people as slaves?

While it wasn’t perfect, it was the best they could do at the time. Despite some beliefs, it was NOT a deeply held conviction that slavery was acceptable among the Founders.

I’m trusting you know that already, so I’ll get off my soapbox.

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM

And if the MPs come in while me and the Marine are scrapping, it’s that we were both diving for a $20 bill we both saw on the floor at the same time. An accidental collision…

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Scary how many bones you can break simply colliding while both diving for $20.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:52 PM

I was responding to another comment citing the laws at the time of the founders.

There was an end to slavery but not in the lifetime of any of the founders. The son of one founder led the Confederate army–which would likely have denied equality to black people much longer had it won the war.

The Constitutional Convention involved much debate on slavery. Though some founders opposed slavery others, like Charles Pinkney, fought for provisions like the fugitive slave clause. Pinkney would continue to defend the practice of slavery or at least protect it from the laws of the federal government.

dedalus on January 28, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Funny, as a grad student who has studied mid-18th Century American history, blacks were much better treated in the South than the North, pre-Reconstruction.

Another fact is that the South had integrated units.

Had the South won, slavery would have ended fairly quickly and it would have ended without race relations being destroyed. After all, if the North was no longer required to return slaves, it would have made escape easier and slavery even less economical.

Tim Burton on January 28, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Scary how many bones you can break simply colliding while both diving for $20.

Rightwingguy on January 28, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Shit happens! LOL

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Funny, as a grad student who has studied mid-18th Century American history, blacks were much better treated in the South than the North, pre-Reconstruction.

I suppose you mean freed blacks, and not the field hands beaten and flogged? Even there, how many northern states criminalized black literacy? Or limited the number of days a freed black could remain in state? Or required a black man to bear upon his person the documents of manumission?

Another fact is that the South had integrated units.

Black labor and white officers?

Had the South won, slavery would have ended fairly quickly and it would have ended without race relations being destroyed. After all, if the North was no longer required to return slaves, it would have made escape easier and slavery even less economical.

Tim Burton on January 28, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Brazil kept slavery until 1892 and Cuba until 1898 and within the Ottoman Empire until the very end. The economics of conscript labor die hard.
By saying race relations were “destroyed” with I take it you mean reduced from the level of master and coon that existed before slavery was so rapidly undone?

Chris_Balsz on January 28, 2010 at 11:11 PM

I always find it amusing that the Senior Officers are “ol” with this policy. It is they who will deal with the friction created by this policy the least.

wfiguy on January 28, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Sorry, “OK” with this policy

wfiguy on January 28, 2010 at 11:36 PM

I’m trusting you know that already, so I’ll get off my soapbox.

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Hey we agree that the founders were great men with a grand ambition.

dedalus on January 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM

If the Taliban is okay with having gays in the military, shouldn’t we be too?

Since the Taliban is ok with beating women, and treating them like property, shouldn’t we be ok with it too?

xblade on January 29, 2010 at 12:15 AM

It’s a very telling result. And not in a good way any American should be proud of.

JetBoy

So, one guy pounding another dude in the ass is something to be proud of?

xblade on January 29, 2010 at 12:34 AM

These are not people I want to serve with, nor most military men I know…

Tim Burton on January 28, 2010 at 10:11 PM

And the best part is, those types of people would be kicked out of the Navy for that sort of thing (not because they are gay but because they are lewd)

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Token knows this is a dividing issue between conservatives and Biblical people. Get the Bible people mad at the conservatives so they run off to tea parties and support a doctrinaire third party candidate.

The culture is gay ga-ga, we can’t reset the clock. I wish it wasn’t so, but this is where we live now.

leftnomore on January 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Care to show me where sailors and Marines have get togethers like Up Your Alley Fair?

These are not people I want to serve with, nor most military men I know…

Tim Burton on January 28, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Well gee Tim I think our military can do better if men like you who are scared of gays just stay away and let tougher guys get on with the job. Why don’t you read a book about how the San Francisco gay community got started.

lexhamfox on January 29, 2010 at 6:28 AM

AP, you punted.

By gays in the military, does your poll mean under DADT? Or does it mean openly gay, dating, drinking cocktails with parasols while in uniform, etc.?

applebutter on January 29, 2010 at 8:15 AM

Today homosexuality, tomorrow polygamy.

What’s next public right to bestiality?

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Personally I’d like to see a poll of just the people here that are actually in or have actually been in our military. That would be a lot more informative.

IMO, turning people away who are willing to make the sacrifices that our military forces do in order to serve their country just because they are gay is just dumb. They are already serving anyway. They just can’t admit it openly.

And I say this as a christian conservative non-Republican.

Benaiah on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Token knows this is a dividing issue between conservatives and Biblical people. Get the Bible people mad at the conservatives so they run off to tea parties and support a doctrinaire third party candidate.

The culture is gay ga-ga, we can’t reset the clock. I wish it wasn’t so, but this is where we live now.

leftnomore on January 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

“Bible” people are conservatives. Remember, Conservatism involves three legs of social, fiscal and defense.

Culture changes like fads. It’s not our fate, unless the country was down the tubes.

So far, no one has proven homosexuality is normal. They can’t do so with science just with emotion.

Like I said before, homosexuality is a political vehicle to silence the opposition. Wonder how many good servicemen will be discharged because of their disagreement with homosexuality?

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Personally I’d like to see a poll of just the people here that are actually in or have actually been in our military. That would be a lot more informative.

IMO, turning people away who are willing to make the sacrifices that our military forces do in order to serve their country just because they are gay is just dumb. They are already serving anyway. They just can’t admit it openly.

And I say this as a christian conservative non-Republican.

Benaiah on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I’m retired military and I object whole heartedly to homo’s in the military.

We live in a a civil society that was built upon judea Christian traditions. Homosexuality contradicts the laws of God and nature(for those of you who don’t believe).

When we as a society start acting like anything goes then Everything goes. Great nations are not conquered, they die from within.

If this is accepted then let’s introduce polygamy and bestiality, right?

Anything goes right?

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 8:46 AM

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

About the same amount that were kicked out because they got caught doing something gay and thus “told”. Just like the folks who whined and quit when women were allowed to fly and were put on ships. If you cant be a big boy about it, we dont need you.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 8:57 AM

I’m retired military and I object whole heartedly to homo’s in the military.

We live in a a civil society that was built upon judea Christian traditions. Homosexuality contradicts the laws of God and nature(for those of you who don’t believe).

When we as a society start acting like anything goes then Everything goes. Great nations are not conquered, they die from within.

If this is accepted then let’s introduce polygamy and bestiality, right?

Anything goes right?

b1jetmech

They are already in the military. You just have the illusion that they aren’t there because they can’t admit it openly. And yet, despite their being there, the military hasn’t collapsed. No one has exchanged their rifles for throw pillows and they haven’t installed track lights in the barracks.

Benaiah on January 29, 2010 at 8:57 AM

I didn’t answer the poll because there are some situations where being gay should be no problem — clerical work, etc.

But take being on a submarine. Being in very close quarters with a known homosexual would not be a good situation.

WannabeAnglican on January 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM

We live in a a civil society that was built upon judea Christian traditions. Homosexuality contradicts the laws of God and nature(for those of you who don’t believe).

As a Jew I am glad you decided to not capitalize and misspell say the “Judeo” part of your statement. Just say Christian, y’alls token references to Judaism are tiresome.

As for “nature”, bestiality is with another creature that can not legally consent, thus it is a rape, as for polygamy some apes mate in monogamous pairs, some do keep a harem, both are part of human culture and history. I personally dont care if your religion tells you to take 4 wives or 1, as long as you are not beating the stuffing out of them and can afford your kids, go for it.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Are they only gonna bend the rules for gays, or are they gonna address TV/TS/TG issues? And why not pedophiles? They need jobs too since priesthood no longer seems to be an option (and boy scout masters hasn’t been legally dictated yet).

olesparkie on January 29, 2010 at 9:11 AM

But take being on a submarine. Being in very close quarters with a known homosexual would not be a good situation.

WannabeAnglican on January 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Havent spent much time on subs?

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 9:11 AM

olesparkie on January 29, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Straw man, pedophiles are criminals who prey on the weak, minors who can not legally consent.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 9:12 AM

We all saw how the brass sheet the bed with the pig nadal hassan.

Let’s project….

Sonosam on January 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Well, I guess I should not be surprised by the level of phobic words posted in these comments. And before any of you blast me with: “Well the Bible says…” I say to you: we have no right to judge.

But take being on a submarine. Being in very close quarters with a known homosexual would not be a good situation.

And your reasons for this are? The “don’t drop the soap” defense is ridiculous so please don’t use that.

Those of you who think that gays are somehow subhuman, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Annietxgrl on January 29, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Special rules

for

Special people

aaagh

Sonosam on January 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Whaddya mean “if the Pentagon is OK with it”?

The Pentagon is also OK with sweeping Maj. Hasan’s Islamic fundamentalism under the rug.

So yeah, I’m sure the Pentagon is, like, all concerned with national security or something.

cackcon on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Personally I’d like to see a poll of just the people here that are actually in or have actually been in our military. That would be a lot more informative.

IMO, turning people away who are willing to make the sacrifices that our military forces do in order to serve their country just because they are gay is just dumb. They are already serving anyway. They just can’t admit it openly.

And I say this as a christian conservative non-Republican.

Benaiah on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Don’t y’all see the whole point of this isn’t to allow gays in the military (they’re already allowed), but to allow them to make a big scene about it? Figuratively speaking, it’s just a great big gay pride parade in uniform.

And really, all this will do is prevent an openly gay soldier from ever being discharged or held up on a promotion, for fear of the discrimination lawsuit that will follow. Just look at the example of Maj. Hasan. No, we’re not talking about a gay terrorist attack, but the end result is putting the interests of an individual ahead of the national interest.

Can we please keep the PC crap out of the military? Please?

cackcon on January 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Benaiah on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I’m ex military and I will tell you straight up, this is a huge mistake. Social experiments with the people protecting the country are stupid.

The military has a very poor record of dealing with gay on straight harassment. Like they do nothing about it at all. They ignore it. I know from first hand experience on several separate occasions at different posts.

Living in the military, in a barracks is not like living off base. Its not like a college campus or something.

Would you house straight guys in the women’s barracks, where they would share the group shower and bathrooms?

Would you put women in the men’s barracks? ( The guys would be ok with this I guess )

I suspect the military will lose a lot of good people over this.

dogsoldier on January 29, 2010 at 10:45 AM

cackcon on January 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM

They aren’t allowed. When a person is discovered to be homosexual they are discharged. At least until very recently. (READ the UCMJ)

dogsoldier on January 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Bah! We’re on the same side. We can have a barroom brawl at 10:00 and be drinking together at a different bar by 10:15. And hiding each other from the MPs. It’s all good!

Liam on January 28, 2010 at 10:17 PM

The Marine barracks was a hop, skip, and a jump (not that we were hopping, skipping, or jumping mind you – not that there is anything wrong with hopping, skipping, or jumping – we just weren’t – okay ! ! !) away from the sub base in Pearl. Several of us would go over to their EM club for lunch several days a week and see how far we could push it – sometimes it would get physical – sometimes not. In the end (oh jeez – no pun) we’d all drink together cause it’s all we had.

Had the “Commie Pinko Fag” barracks been a hop, skip, and a jump away from the sub base. us squids would have joined the jarheads and gone there instead to see how far we could push it …….

remember – the best marine is a submarine.

oldfiveanddimer on January 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM

HondaV65 on January 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Chief, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to bed-hop after a rather nasty day of Laundry duty, Mess, maintaining every little thing on an aircraft carrier, etc, especially when showering on the carrier is at a premium. Regardless of sexual orientation.

Maybe, (and I get to challenge a Chief. Yay!) the idea is to work them as hard as possible so that they’re too dead-tired to think about sexual activity outside of occasional liberty.

BradSchwartze on January 29, 2010 at 10:53 AM

dogsoldier on January 29, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Yeah, they’ll lose a lot of folks in an environment of 10% unemployment (19% in the construction industry) over DADT.

/sarc

BradSchwartze on January 29, 2010 at 10:56 AM

BradSchwartze on January 29, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Yes they will. You clearly have no clue and never served. With the RoE and other issues the way they are (like not being properly equipped) add this social experiment on top. Yeah many will leave.

The military is also having a serious problem with pregnancies in theater. (Which has happened before, btw) Another stupid social experiment working out in a thoroughly predictable and bad way.

dogsoldier on January 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Witch hunts in 3…2…1…

Evangelical Christians and others in the service better watch out. If you’re a straight white male with an aversion to gays, ya better keep your mouth shut. Clintonian witch hunts are mere months away, at this point.

HowardRoarke on January 29, 2010 at 11:50 AM

About the same amount that were kicked out because they got caught doing something gay and thus “told”. Just like the folks who whined and quit when women were allowed to fly and were put on ships. If you cant be a big boy about it, we dont need you.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Oh, Sure! be a big boy! What wisdom. Again, tell us all where it is normal to be “gay” then your assertion can have some merit.

As far as women goes, there’s nothing alike a woman dropping her end of the AIM-9 missile because she is too weak to lift. Takes three people to lift and she got the warhead side. Now that could have been a mess!

Us big boys here have no problem killing the enemy. Don’t confuse that with giving in to political correctness over someones sexuality.

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Well, I guess I should not be surprised by the level of phobic words posted in these comments. And before any of you blast me with: “Well the Bible says…” I say to you: we have no right to judge.

Well if I want to preserve traditional marriage, stand for was right and wrong including keeping gays out of the military then I must “phobic” Rather stand for something then fall for anything.

Those of you who think that gays are somehow subhuman, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Annietxgrl on January 29, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Excuse they don’t deserve special rights through their behavior. Why don’t answer the question that never gets one…that is is being gay normal, then what makes a person gay? I don’t drink the koolaide on this one.

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM

As a Jew I am glad you decided to not capitalize and misspell say the “Judeo” part of your statement. Just say Christian, y’alls token references to Judaism are tiresome.

Well sure. After all the Christian heritage is what led to our civil society. I reference Judaism as the “root” to Christianity.

As for “nature”, bestiality is with another creature that can not legally consent, thus it is a rape, as for polygamy some apes mate in monogamous pairs, some do keep a harem, both are part of human culture and history. I personally dont care if your religion tells you to take 4 wives or 1, as long as you are not beating the stuffing out of them and can afford your kids, go for it.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Well sir, you comparing us to animals as a means to justify immoral behavior is a weak one. This nation didn’t become a super power because of “gays in the military”, no. It’s because of our civil and free society.

Again, the homosexual issue is a wedge issue to used a political vehicle to silenced any opposition in the arena of ideals. No one has yet stated it it’s normal and people are born with it.

I am already suspicious of the homo movement because they all vote for the most liberal candidate. Another words they would vote foe Joseph Stalin it if means they get what they want and to the HELL with the rest of us!

Got it?

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I am already suspicious of the homo movement because they all vote for the most liberal candidate. Another words they would vote foe Joseph Stalin it if means they get what they want and to the HELL with the rest of us!

Got it?

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Not all of them. Plenty of them are conservative or republican, we have quite a few on this board in fact.

As for out military being great, we also didnt become a great nation by letting blacks and women fight, but time changes.

Repealing DADT would be a small change in the big scheme of things, the only people on full freakout seem to be the ones who are scared of getting their shaft ogled in the shower.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM

http://www.proud2serve.net/img/hystericals.jpg

Grunchy Cranola on January 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Look I’m not going to get into a p-ing fight with you. As our Lord and Savior said, he who has no sin, cast the first stone (or words to that effect).

My father, who was in the military, and is now 81 years old, said: I have no problem with gays in the military as long as they don’t hit on me.

Do you honestly think our gay servicemen and women (who, need I remind you, are ALREADY serving) would suddenly, ooo we’re FREE and start hitting on unsuspecting heterosexuals? If you think that, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

Do you know any gay people? Any friends who are gay? Family members? If you do, and you still haven’t figured it out that their “sin” if you wish to call it that, is between them and God, then I’m sorry.

Time to get off my soapbox, I want to say to all of our servicemen and women who are gay or not: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for your service to our country.

Annietxgrl on January 29, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Not all of them. Plenty of them are conservative or republican, we have quite a few on this board in fact.

As for out military being great, we also didnt become a great nation by letting blacks and women fight, but time changes.

Repealing DADT would be a small change in the big scheme of things, the only people on full freakout seem to be the ones who are scared of getting their shaft ogled in the shower.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM

I believe this isn’t an issue of consensus when it comes to right and wrong. The truth of something doesn’t lie in how many believe to justify something that is contrary to thousands of years in human history.

You keep bringing up Blacks and women, there is no correlation between racial, gender and sexual behavior. your argument holds no water because there is no comparison between the two.

A person who is a homosexual can change their ways where a black person can’t change the pigment of their skin(even though Michael Jackson did it).

So civil rights for blacks is NOT the same as for gays.

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Do you know any gay people? Any friends who are gay? Family members? If you do, and you still haven’t figured it out that their “sin” if you wish to call it that, is between them and God, then I’m sorry.

Time to get off my soapbox, I want to say to all of our servicemen and women who are gay or not: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for your service to our country.

Annietxgrl on January 29, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Yes I do. And what better example to use is myself. I use to be gay from a teenager to young adult. I got out of the life style when I accepted Christ as my savior.

So because of this, the public needs to hear our side of the story that is a continuing media blackout.

I married with three kids. I don’t look back to what I use to be.

I know what homosexuals feel and think. They can strongly believe that it is perfectly natural for the way they feel. But even the Bible says, “there is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death.”

So No matter how I feel something may be right, it can still be wrong.

Go to websites like Exodus International which is a ministry that helps people leave the gay lifestyle.

BTW, using the verse “do hot judge” pertains to judging someone to death.

A woman was about to be stoned to death because she violated the law and Jesus stood in the way of her would be executioners and said “unless any of you have not sinned, then cast the first stone” they all dropped their stones and left. Then Jesus said to her, “go and sin no more”

Just some info for you.

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM

You misunderstand, I agree, sexual orientation is not quite the same as race or gender (closer to gender of course). I do see all of these traits as immutable in the legal sense. And for “thousands of years” sexuality has been a matter of societal consensus.

But back to unchangeable characteristics and comparisons. The notion that eliminating DADT will lead to a gay pride parade in uniform is paranoid at best. DADT did stop the wasteful and stupid investigation into the bedroom practices of consenting adults. However, the policy is tricky at best and gives a whole ton of lazy sandbaggers an easy out. I can think of about 4 sailors I know of that were processed out underr DADT just because they wanted out. I was certain they were not gay, but thems the breaks. It is a stupid policy, you either ban any kind of promiscuous behavior or deviant sex or you dont.

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 3:16 PM

b1jetmech on January 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM

And I can think of plenty like you who are miserable and sick and then when they “relapse” they kill themselves or hurt others.

I am glad you are “rehabilitated” but you are the exception, not the rule.

Of course I already know your answer, so I will take care of that too: “they didnt really accept Jesus” “they are not committed to the program” “they are too mired in sin”

Squid Shark on January 29, 2010 at 3:23 PM

DADT – It ain’t broke so don’t fix it. Like most other human situations there is and has never been a rule that fits all cases. Don’t care. DADT mostly works and that’s good enough. And yeah, I discriminate; I consider consequences. That is I am responsible for my actions.

BTW Air Force

Caststeel on January 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Active duty army…. as for me, I spent much of my time as a company commander in Iraq dealing w/ drama between male and female soldiers. That drama can be a destructive force to morale and unit cohesion. It’s not that I don’t want gays in the military. I have known some, and some are still serving. The problem comes with implementation. What about privacy in quarters? the field? combat? Women can be a problem because they require separate places to sleep, shower, etc… try figuring that out with limited resources (rooms/tents/showers/bathrooms) on top of everything else you have to do. (same reason I don’t believe women should be allowed in the infantry). At least now, we have effectively gays in the miltary… it’s just not a problem unless THEY make it a problem.

It’s a distraction we do not need. The army should be focused on fighting and winning our nations wars, not figuring out who is the next group who gets special treatment, who has to be separated from whom, or who is involved who whom…. I see a whole new round of sensitivity training comming… probably written by people who ride a desk and have never deployed (or even served).

BadBrad on January 29, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Game-changer …

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns — though they seem to be in complete denial about it.

This story kind of makes me change my mind in regard to gays in the military … I say we draft them all and send them to Kandahar.

Definitely falls into the “Be Careful What You Wish For” category.

Let’s make the Afghan War, the “Gay War.” We have been protecting our precious gays too long.

J_Crater on January 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4