Federal judge halts enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” worldwide

posted at 4:52 pm on October 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not surprising. Remember, she’s already ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. The lingering question was whether it was unconstitutional only for the named plaintiffs in the case — i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans — or whether it’s unconstitutional for everyone. Surprise: “Unconstitutional” means unconstitutional.

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the U.S. military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops…

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips’ ruling stand…

“The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country,” said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.

Decision time for The One: Does he appeal or not? If he decides not to, he’ll undercut Gates’s insistence that no action should be taken on the policy until the Pentagon completes its review of the effects on readiness. If he does appeal, he’ll antagonize the lefties (especially young voters) whom he needs to turn out next month. The obvious solution is to punt and avoid a decision until after the election, but I’m not sure liberals will let him get away with that. What if the “professional left” mobilizes and demands a decision before November 2? Prediction: Heart-ache at the Pentagon.

Exit question: Is this actually a blessing in disguise for the GOP? We may well have a Republican majority in the Senate next year, and without this decision the survival of DADT would fall mainly on them. Their inclination will be to satisfy the social-con base and vote to keep it, but that would put them on the wrong side of public opinion (including Republican opinion) and would instantly destroy any chance of rapprochement with gay voters. The judge let them off the hook by taking the issue out of their hands. Abortion redux!


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 4 5 6 7

Night Haters, off to sleep

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

LOL well I see the ax murdering heteros have retired for supper and we have the standard “The constitution doesn’t apply to soldiers crowd on.

Grow up, try to make the world a better place and stop worrying about gays. Your far more likely to be murdered by albino canadians crossing the border to take scalps.

If you are against the rule of law get the hell out of my country

@Akzed you dumb ass hat

Are you really that dense or do you sometimes wake up to find that you had sex with a dog while drunk? (since I’m sure you’ll go there soon enough)

@hawkdriver that was a joke…It was pretty obvious so I’m guessing you should switch to decaf.

(Personnally, strongly offended by this one since most of my friends know my lips were shot off in the war and I can’t blow on my coffee to cool it down anymore)

@rigbefore denigrating him through the prism of history and people that used his name.ht4life you do know that Karl Marx was a champion of the middle class right? as well as anti slavery. Please read what he wrote

It’s apparently very easy to be a nazi christian though or to praise the destruction of gays as gods work

I mean it’s not like I expect every straight person to act like the do in New Orleans on Mardi Gra. Or blame all breeders for giving us Beiber.

All quotes on this thread by guess who…???

lol, you can’t make this stuff up.

Nite you ole haters, you!

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 11:29 PM

The self-proclaimed patriots among the religious right have an appalling lack of confidence in our troops’ maturity and competence. The United States military is not the first to allow homosexuals to serve their country under the same conditions as heterosexuals, and it’s insulting to suggest that ours will be the first to experience problems as a result.

RightOFLeft on October 12, 2010 at 11:31 PM

@applebutter I apologize if I misread your comment, it did appear that you were saying that gays had to announce they were gay to be kicked out. If that were the case the law would not be the affront that it is. However in respect to equality heterosexuals are not booted from the military if it is revealed or if they reveal that they are heterosexual. Nor are they discharged if their wives or husbands are brought to military ceremonies or homecomings.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

.
Zeke, it’s not that simple, you could bring your significant other to an event, you just can’t say “This is my gay lover”.
You could say “this is my friend”, “this is my room mate”, “this is my buddy”, and on and on, and even if you do say your gay, and you plan on having homosexual relations, you have to say it several times in front of several officers before anyone is going to start proceedings against you.
The dirty little secret is that unless you out yourself and continue to do so, no one will really care. People that have left and then sniveled about it chose that route, and are now complaining that they were mistreated.
All they ever had to do at any time was say “I’m not going to engage in homosexual activities” it could be a lie, it could be true only for today, but that’s all it takes for the discharge to stop. One has to affirm over and over that they are gay and that they will engage in homosexual activities to be discharged.
The military doesn’t throw them out, they throw themselves out.

LincolntheHun on October 12, 2010 at 11:36 PM

@hawkdriver I of course salute the tragic sacrifice of your lips in the pursuit of out hegemonic control and policing if the world. Had I known you were offended by decaf I would gladly sent you a case of cold brewed green tea.

Also Karl Marx was not a bad fellow and he was a champion of the middle class. I was edified by his writings and I think many in this time would be as well.

Also I did totally accede to your request about breeders, which i think merely a playful term, and never one I’ve used in anger.

Also Beiber is the devil.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Um if you don’t believe that gays are regularly attacked, beaten, and killed, try this for fun, hold your buddies hand and walk down any street.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

I’m on the autistic-spectrum and I’ve suffered some nastiness because of it.
So what.
Playing the ‘victim’ card is unbecoming…and morally wrong.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 12, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Thanks for not using the B word. Detente, I suppose.

But after I summed up all the insults you used on the thread, maybe you can see why some people felt compelled to use strong language with you. But anyway, show me where they called you a fascist just for saying you liked Marx and I’ll help you taunt them.

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM

@LincolntheHun no you are mistaken, also if you are married please try to refer to your wife as your room mate for an entire week.

This goes to the heart of what living ing the closet actual does, many including myself believed that it was possible to live in the closet only to find that over time it destroys both your personal life and your sanity. That so many are willing to do it in pursuit of their military is an astounding monument to the resolve of the gay members of our military. However it isn’t fair or equal and in fact degrades both their service and their sacrifice on our behalf. It isn’t necessary and it shouldn’t be tolerated in a free secular society.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Also I did totally accede to your request about breeders, which i think merely a playful term, and never one I’ve used in anger.

Really, you can’t see why someone who is in a conventional relationship with children would be offended by someone characterizing them, reducing them to some curt abbreviation because they included children in their relationship decision? Does it help your debate to dehumanize us, reduce you to your most convenient definition?

I suppose some might conside the gloves off!

hawkdriver on October 12, 2010 at 11:49 PM

@hawkdriver sadly Right4life called me a fascist simple for disagreeing with me after i clearly stated I was a humanist. Nor at anytime did I promote a fascist agenda in this thread. He/she does it all the time. It’s just what he does.

It’s been an interesting night over all, I’m only on these threads because in the old days it was just straights going back and forth about the terror of the gays, so I volunteered for this chickensh*t outfit :-)
As for the insults I started in the first lines of this thread when everyone was talking about killing gays and mass insurrection I figured I better use strong language to counter the flustered heterosexuals. It’s insulting to those that serve in silence to be treated like that by those they protect.
I do know what you are saying but I come from a world that hates gays with an unbecoming passion, being soft meant taking the abuse which i did for years. I really have buried two friends who took the knife rather than endure the taunts. I still see them.
I can’t let the next generation endure what i did silently anymore.
Cheers

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Yes. And I do consider it a form of discrimination to permit heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage.

As far as your second point .. I’m confused .. if a heterosexual has sex with somebody of the same sex doesn’t that make them … you know … not heterosexual? Aren’t they bi at the very least?

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:06 PM

If a heterosexual has sex with someone of the same gender, he’s not a heterosexual, strictly speaking. But that’s not the point.

Here’s a clue: What we say is not necessarily what we do. It would be a stupid thing to do, for a soldier to tell someone he want’s to perform homosexual acts. And it remains stupid, regardless of sexual orientation.

applebutter on October 12, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Not immutable, rather most people have a strong and involuntary preference toward one gender or the other.

dedalus on October 12, 2010 at 8:48 PM

If sexuality is not immutable then it cannot be the basis for discrimination, at least not when your two alternatives are either pleasing 2% of the population (and their zealous advocates) who, let’s be honest, are not on the whole particularly fond of the United States Military or keeping in line with 98% of the population whose views are for the most part in favor of not using the military as a social experiment.

I was wondering when Zekecorlain’s mask would slip, it took so little time too. Hey I wonder Zeke, can I call you Zeke, I wonder if NAMBLA is a good representation of the homosexual movement. Or for something less purposefully disgusting how about any of various studies that show a fairly strong correlation between homosexual tendencies and early childhood abuse as compared to heterosexual children? I know you don’t actually have problems with groups that “take public monies (which the Catholic Church doesn’t, btw. When I worked for the Archdiocese of Boston nobody was petitioning Beacon Hill or the Feds for funds)” discriminating against people, you just hate the Catholic Church with an irrational fury and passion because dispite how utterly useless gay groups are in comparison, being gay and getting a protection racket for it (with public monies I might add) is a higher cause than the whole feeding the poor and needy thing.

All I know is the Catholic Church doesn’t use public monies funding parades for how damn proud we all are to be Catholic. We certainly don’t need to be “out and proud” about where we stick our genetalia, and we don’t publicly gloat about how great the Catholic Church is. Here’s a hint bucko: If you do happen to be one of the few poor gay people stuck in a ghetto with some terrible STD because your last partner got a bit carried away with his onslaught of previous partners, chances are the only hospital nearby is a Catholic one, and guess what: They don’t give a damn if you’re gay and need medical services.

Gays are too self-absorbed and hyperpolitical to ever extend the same courtesy to Catholics, but then, “Gay Hospital” sounds like a snuff film, doesn’t it? Not that the homosexual movement ever does anything constructive, they just destroy whatever policies they don’t like and leave the rest of us to clean up the mess in their wake.

BKennedy on October 12, 2010 at 11:52 PM

@hawkdriver really? you don’t think that gays are reduced to some sex acts all the time? You don’t think that certain groups use the term “homosexual” over “gay” to remind people that sex is at the heart of the difference? interesting cause that’s what i face everyday. #honest perhaps being called a f*g for 20 years has desensitized me. I’ll consider your comments

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:52 PM

@applebutter @bkennedy I wish i had this speech saved somewhere it would save me a lot of time.
what makes gays way is the fact that we can only form deep bond with members of the same sex. Straights can take viagra and have sex for pay or perhaps they just like the feeling, but gays can only form true relationship bonds with members of their same sex. This means that even if I married a woman I couldn’t actually care for her as much I could care for a man that I was romantically attached to. This is why it’s cruel to encourage gays to marry straights, you destroy the woman and the man, and in the end neither are happy. I can appreciate the form of a woman but it does nothing for me, I judge it solely on the popular attributes that my society values, not on the person they represent. This attraction is the difference, not the sexual acts.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM

@applebutter @bkennedy I wish i had this speech saved somewhere it would save me a lot of time.
what makes gays way is the fact that we can only form deep bond with members of the same sex. Straights can take drugs and have sex for pay or perhaps they just like the feeling, but gays can only form true relationship bonds with members of their same sex. This means that even if I married a woman I couldn’t actually care for her as much I could care for a man that I was romantically attached to. This is why it’s cruel to encourage gays to marry straights, you destroy the woman and the man, and in the end neither are happy. I can appreciate the form of a woman but it does nothing for me, I judge it solely on the popular attributes that my society values, not on the person they represent. This attraction is the difference, not the sexual acts.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:00 AM

The self-proclaimed patriots among the religious right have an appalling lack of confidence in our troops’ maturity and competence. The United States military is not the first to allow homosexuals to serve their country under the same conditions as heterosexuals, and it’s insulting to suggest that ours will be the first to experience problems as a result.

RightOFLeft on October 12, 2010 at 11:31 PM

ROL, I am no self proclaimed patriot. I have served for 34 years and am down to my last so days or so before my retirement is final. There may be some who know the military as well as me, but no one who knows it better. The logistics of this will severely cripple our Armed Forces. I do not say that out of any great animosity for gay Americans. Read this thread and you’ll find many a hateful word on their part though. I am a pragmatic man. My opinion about them serving openly is based on the realization that billeting will never appease any of the wishes of a majority of those of us who serve. We are introducing an entire new class of EO group consideration. And no matter how you try to demean those of us who hold these concerns as homophobes or haters or whatever, you have to concede the fact that a vast majority of the military will find this behavior incompatible with military good order and disipline.

I don’t know in all of my 34 years, more than a handful of people that I’ve know or worked with that think this is a good idea. I’m not sure where this plurality is to end DADT you all keep referring to.

But, the good news for you is that we will lose this. It’s so important to the forces pushing this, that even I know it can’t be stopped. I hope you all come back to Hot Air to discuss the damage after it’s done.

The good news for me, I’m out in about 50 days and won’t have to serve under these rules.

Lastly, when do we care what anyone else did with their Armed Forces? Why should we care? Our military is the finest on the planet and should have to emulate, no one!

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM
@LincolntheHun no you are mistaken,

Fine then please refer me to the regulations concerning conduct and separations, as I must be very mistaken in how we conduct biz in the Army.

From AR 635-200
Only a commander in the Soldier’s chain of command in the grade of 0–7 (That’s a General )or higher is authorized to initiate fact-finding inquiries involving homosexual conduct.
.
You have to go through a lot of officers before a General is bothered.
.
Same regulation Chapter 15-3 [A soldier may be retained if]
(4) Under the particular circumstances of the case, the Soldier’s continued presence in the Army is consistent with the interest of the Army in maintaining proper discipline, good order, and morale.
.
So there you go you can be gay and serve, you just can’t be a disruption

.

also if you are married please try to refer to your wife as your room mate for an entire week.

I’ve called her worse, and I’m married to a smoking hot redhead

LincolntheHun on October 13, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Yes. And I do consider it a form of discrimination to permit heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 11:06 PM

If your gin hasn’t yet taken effect, explain how discrimination takes place with identical treatment. Try not to use any circular references.

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:52 PM

You should calm down. No one here called you those names. I’m still looking for where you claimed someone called you a fascist. Why are you taking this out on us?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:05 AM

So for everyone who snivels about how you can’t be gay and in the military it’s a LIE!
.
AR 635-200 Chapter 15-4 (4)
(4) Under the particular circumstances of the case, the Soldier’s continued presence in the Army is consistent with the interest of the Army in maintaining proper discipline, good order, and morale.
.
You can’t be a disruption and serve in the Army.

LincolntheHun on October 13, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:52 PM

Are you saying Gays can’t become addicted to drugs?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM

@hawkdriver thank you for your service, but having reviewed every other military that did this I don’t think it will be any different than the last great blending. Tempers will flare and sgt’s will keep things in line. Officers will be challenged and will have to spend time working out personal issues, but in the end it’s better, and it will work. Those gays seeking to prove themselves to their families and themselves will continue to join and the camaraderie of suffering will continue. Honestly if we can integrate women we can integrate gays. After all they’re already there…

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Me thinks your argument has reduced to wild claims.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:10 AM

@hawkdriver far from it, the despair that many feel in the isolation imposed on them by their families drive many to drugs, but is that any different from the common grunt? Hell I chose escapism as a philosophy till I almost died. But i drank with many soldiers doing the same.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:10 AM

If sexuality is not immutable then it cannot be the basis for discrimination, at least not when your two alternatives are either pleasing 2% of the population (and their zealous advocates) who, let’s be honest, are not on the whole particularly fond of the United States Military or keeping in line with 98% of the population whose views are for the most part in favor of not using the military as a social experiment.

As a serial offender of writing run-on sentences myself, I am just in awe of this. Would you say that being Catholic could be a basis for discrimination? Yet it’s much easier for a Catholic to change his faith than for a homosexual to change her sexual preference. Immutable is too inexact a word to describe sexual orientation in general, but there are certainly men and women in particular who can be described as such. Just like you (presumably) didn’t choose to be straight, many people didn’t choose to be gay.

It may be true that liberals generally express less respect for the military — strangely the reverse is true in the case of DADT — but you can’t deny there are homosexuals who have honorably served their country. At least, served as honorably as a country that requires them to lie can serve.

The fact that there are relatively few gays in the United States isn’t a basis to deprive them of their rights and dignity.

We certainly don’t need to be “out and proud” about where we stick our genetalia

I should hope not, considering recent developments in the priesthood.

and we don’t publicly gloat about how great the Catholic Church is.

Not even worth explaining how obviously false that is.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 12:14 AM

@hawkdriver page 4 somewhere right before i went off on him.
I did hit the gin about 30 minutes ago so anything is possible. Where are you stationed right now anyway? 50 days will see you out before Dec. whatcha gonna do?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:15 AM

I should hope not, considering recent developments in the priesthood.

and we don’t publicly gloat about how great the Catholic Church is.

Not even worth explaining how obviously false that is.

RightOFLeft

on the plus side they totally believe in evolution now, tbh any detailed study of the origin of religions will destroy most faith.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:17 AM

Texas state GOP platform. And was it .. ummm…. wyoming? minnesota? There was another one on here a few weeks ago.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I remember the Texas GOP one. As idiotic as I think the section regarding gay marriage is, the platform did not, as I recall, advocate criminalizing homosexuality.

So can I conclude that the rest of the claims are just as much hyperbole?

malclave on October 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM

1. You’re admitting this will cause a disorder that these NCOs and Officers will have to manage?

2. I just reviewed the entire thread. No one made a threat about killing a homosexual or made a claim to want an insurrection.

3. And as much as the Harvey Milk assination was a tragedy, it wasn’t about him being gay, it was about White being fired.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:20 AM

So what happens if someone is outed now.

PrezHussein on October 13, 2010 at 12:21 AM

There is no right to serve in the military. They can keep you out for being too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, too stupid, or too much of a smart-ass.

If you have a sexual orientation that interferes with getting the job done then you can be excluded for that, too.

Really Right on October 13, 2010 at 12:21 AM

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:02 AM

I’m genuinely grateful for your service.

Lastly, when do we care what anyone else did with their Armed Forces? Why should we care?

Because it proves that ending DADT isn’t a social experiment. It’s a proven-safe policy.

If you weren’t out in 50 days, just speaking for yourself, would you serve with any less love for your country? Isn’t that sense of real patriotism enough to get through the few awkward moments that so many other countries have successfully navigated?

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 12:21 AM

malclave on October 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM

You’re correct. I’m not sure what else besides the TX GOP gay marriage platform he might be talking about.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:24 AM

For goodness sakes…this is just some silly District Court Judge. Just pat the little fellow on the head and ignore him if you are outside his jurisdiction. He has no more authority to issue wold wide rulings then you or I do.

He/she or it is the reason so few of us respect the courts any longer.

JIMV on October 13, 2010 at 12:24 AM

@hawkdriver all social interaction causes issues what’s new about that?

This inept Congress and this idiot president have provided NO LEADERSHIP and now this worthless jackass judge saddles us with this?

I hold out hope that a military coup in this country will not be necessary but I am growing pessimistic. Our civilian leadership is totally with out brain, guts or ethics.
satisfied?

so Milk was assassinated because he got in the way?
NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:52 PM

@applebutter @bkennedy I wish i had this speech saved somewhere it would save me a lot of time.
what makes gays way is the fact that we can only form deep bond with members of the same sex. Straights can take drugs and have sex for pay or perhaps they just like the feeling, but gays can only form true relationship bonds with members of their same sex. This means that even if I married a woman I couldn’t actually care for her as much I could care for a man that I was romantically attached to. This is why it’s cruel to encourage gays to marry straights, you destroy the woman and the man, and in the end neither are happy. I can appreciate the form of a woman but it does nothing for me, I judge it solely on the popular attributes that my society values, not on the person they represent. This attraction is the difference, not the sexual acts.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:00 AM

I hope you find someone you can share your life with. If you do, you’ll have my full support in a civil union complete with all tax and insurance bennies, provided you don’t insist on forcing my children and my children’s children to call it marriage.

I wouldn’t encourage you to marry a woman if you weren’t so inclined.

I’m not sure what you’re saying about drugs and pay sex for straights.

I couldn’t agree more on the lack of importance of sexual acts. Behavior is voluntary. If it’s not voluntary, it’s not behavior. Would I agree to be celibate to join the Marines? I don’t know. I guess it would depend on how badly I wanted to be a Marine. But for sure, if not being celibate is against the rules, if I joined, I would surely do my best to be celibate.

There may be a much better way to treat homosexuality in the military than DADT. But that better way absolutely will not be forced on the military by a civilian judge.

Hawkdriver put it much better than I ever could. The military is a different kind of place. It has functions that will not be well served by blunt force change in morals.

Gates is right. Let the military figure out the best way to handle this. I guarantee they feel social pressure, and things will change eventually. And for the better.

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 12:30 AM

sorry screwed up that last quote

This inept Congress and this idiot president have provided NO LEADERSHIP and now this worthless jackass judge saddles us with this?

I hold out hope that a military coup in this country will not be necessary but I am growing pessimistic. Our civilian leadership is totally with out brain, guts or ethics.

satisfied? first page 5:07pm

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:30 AM

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:02 AM
I’m genuinely grateful for your service.

Many folks have said that on DADT threads when I state my years to describe the position my opinion comes from. The odd thing is that gratitude never seems to translate into any credence to my assertions that this will without a doubt cripple our military. “Thanks for your service but screw your opinion. We know better.”

And to your second question, I can’t even begin to imagine how we will even house everyone. The EO burden alone is going to kill us. (No Zeke, I don’t really mean literally kill anyone)

ROL, our military is not the same as others. We will fail because of this ruling. Half of the people I know are considering leaving, even mid-career if this comes to be.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:35 AM

@applebutter the military is controlled by civilians are you saying we should stop this? History has shown that the people should be responsible for their military, both their actions and their orders. The rest of the world has shown it’s not a big deal, and that fear is all that stops equality. Should we ignore these lessons? wouldn’t that make us culpable to the suffering of those who have to endure our fears?Mincing around what needs to be done is mere weakness, we are better than that and so is our military.
Over time I have come to realize that expecting celibacy in humans is a foolish wager, yet many attempt this and lose years if not decades serving their families or the rules of society. This is an unfair sacrifice and not necessary to a successful military.
The military is the tool of the people, nothing more nothing less.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:38 AM

@hawkdriver how many times have you heard people tell you they are out only to see them after they reenlist?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Oh, I thought you said…

As for the insults I started in the first lines of this thread when everyone was talking about killing gays and mass insurrection I figured I better use strong language to counter the flustered heterosexuals. It’s insulting to those that serve in silence to be treated like that by those they protect.

One comment is everyone? I still didn’t see any call to kill gays and that’s what you think a serious call to insurrection is?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:41 AM

@hawkdriver i watched a confirmed atheist change his entire life as he approached death by cancer. Fear does strange things to humans but it shouldn’t be the over riding decision maker for policy.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:41 AM

“Thanks for your service but screw your opinion. We know better.”

I’m more impressed by your service than your arguments. Sorry.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 12:43 AM

@hawkdriver how many times have you heard people tell you they are out only to see them after they reenlist?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:40 AM

I don’t understand what you’re asking. Are you asking me if people “came out” before they reenlisted? If they came out they wouldn’t be permitted to reenlist.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:43 AM

@hawkdriver dear god, you said you didn’t see anyone! do you want me to go back and list every comment, and than break them down and analysis each for both meta and micro social meanings?? ok I used hyperbole I admit it, that must mean everything that I’ve said is a lie. I like you but you also took offense to jokes so what do you want?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:44 AM

@hawkdriver how many times have you heard people tell you they are out only to see them after they reenlist?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:40 AM

I don’t understand what you’re asking. Are you asking me if people “came out” before they reenlisted? If they came out they wouldn’t be permitted to reenlist.

hawkdriver

how many times have you heard someone bitch about being in the service only to re-enlist??

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:46 AM

Soldiers can form a bond that is different than anything they will have with their wife.

PrezHussein on October 13, 2010 at 12:49 AM

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:35 AM

To put it another way, hopefully a little less abrasively, there’s no shortage of military men who express the opposite views as yours. I can’t defer to both of you, so I think it’s reasonable to pick a side.

Out of curiosity, can you honestly tell me that your concerns are more about military effectiveness than fidelity to a religious point of view?

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 12:49 AM

I’m more impressed by your service than your arguments. Sorry.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 12:43 AM

That’s why these discussions will never produce an understanding. My service and my argument are one in the same. The opinion is formed by that service. My convictions that this will cripple our military formed because of my knowledge and 34 years of experience. I have spent half of the last decade in the Middle East in the very conditions people like you seek to jerrymander.

How can you not at least consider my argument? Let me answer for you. My argument doesn’t matter, whether I served all those years or never served at all, my opinion doesn’t matter because you can’t consider any alternative. It’s too important to you.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:44 AM

Dear God, just find “one” quote where a person on this thread advocated the killing of gays.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM

@hawkdriver I have evaluated your arguments and found them wanting, given the overwhelming data in the opposite, there is the strong chance that you are wrong and that tens of thousands of gays will be able to serve more effectively. They serve right now, beside you and without compliant prove that if you know they are gay they will be a detriment. Should all suffer from fear?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:55 AM

@hawkdriver you do realize you moved the goal post from your first request?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:59 AM

To put it another way, hopefully a little less abrasively, there’s no shortage of military men who express the opposite views as yours.

I never do this. Make assertion, I can’t back. So accept this or not but I have taken part in an extensive survey of military officers to determine the impact of repealling DADT. The people that I know in DA who are aware of the results say it’s not even close. Military Officers are overwhelmingly opposed to this. Again, I can’t quote a source so dismiss it if you’ve come to believe I exaggerate in my comments on Hot Air. My opinion that many will leave is mostly from my unit I’m retiring from. It’s an Avaition Brigade of about 3500 troopers, NCOs and officers. Being very senior, many of the younger soldiers ask me what they should do. The number that talk about punching out is staggering.

And I’m not a perfect Christian, but my faith guides my life. That doesn’t really have a bearing on the argument though.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM

And I’m not a perfect Christian, but my faith guides my life. That doesn’t really have a bearing on the argument though.

hawkdriver

but it doesn’t guide military policy. trusting in god will get you shot every time

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM

@applebutter the military is controlled by civilians are you saying we should stop this? History has shown that the people should be responsible for their military, both their actions and their orders. The rest of the world has shown it’s not a big deal, and that fear is all that stops equality. Should we ignore these lessons? wouldn’t that make us culpable to the suffering of those who have to endure our fears?Mincing around what needs to be done is mere weakness, we are better than that and so is our military.
Over time I have come to realize that expecting celibacy in humans is a foolish wager, yet many attempt this and lose years if not decades serving their families or the rules of society. This is an unfair sacrifice and not necessary to a successful military.
The military is the tool of the people, nothing more nothing less.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 12:38 AM

What are you asking? If the military shouldn’t be governed by civilian leadership? Of course it should. By the executive branch, as pitiful as that is right now. Should some district judge be allowed to tell soldiers, airmen and sailors how many times they must wipe their asses, and what color the paper has to be?

In a word, no.

I was not volunteering to be celibate. I was acknowledging that if it’s the rule, and I want to join, the onus is on me to attempt to live within those rules. If I’m not prepared to do that, I shouldn’t consider the option. I damn sure wouldn’t sue because I couldn’t live up to the rules.

Again, I don’t know that DADT is more effective than a wide open, take your boy toy to meet the Colonel at the formal dance. I can’t tell you. And you don’t know either.

Your claim that the rest of the world has shown it doesn’t matter is simply not valid. There is no other military in the world that’s as effective as ours. I don’t know that banning open homosexuality is the differentiator. I’d doubt that it is. But I can guess that if enough things change, it won’t be the best in the world any more.

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM

As for the insults I started in the first lines of this thread when everyone was talking about killing gays and mass insurrection

Isn’t that what you were inferring here?

As for the insults I started in the first lines of this thread when everyone was talking about killing gays and mass insurrection

People were talking about how gays were treated by less tolerant countries, but I looked and searched and couldn’t find one statement where someone was advocating it.

ok I used hyperbole I admit it,

Okay, this is a step in the right direction.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Hawk – Thank you for expessing this so well. You have some serious patience.

Laura in Maryland on October 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Yeah! Let’s Rock!

I’m ready for the “PMS Battalions” of clipped-haired and anti-male lesbians storming into Afghanistan to kick some Taliban ***!!!

The gay boys can stay home and make sure that their uniforms don’t clash…

Victory is at hand…

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 1:08 AM

I never do this. Make assertion, I can’t back.

The only way to settle that is to find a scientific poll of service members. People you’ve talked to are much more likely to agree with you, especially if you’re a senior officer.

I could google the polls, link to video of testimony from high-ranking service members testifying to the opposite of what you’re saying. I think it’s a waste of time because I’ve already seen it, but if you want to back an assertion, that’s what I would consider.

If people are honestly thinking their country isn’t worth defending anymore because of something like this, I gotta be honest, I think that’s a damn shame.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 1:11 AM

@hawkdriver only on page two so far. also you changed the goal post remember and I admit my mistakes and work to build consensus. Many don’t.

so far you have listed polls but not studies should I insist that you cite data instead of feelings or unscientific polls? We’re already recruiting felons for service over gays is that a net positive?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:12 AM

but it doesn’t guide military policy. trusting in god will get you shot every time

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Are you trying to upset me with narrowminded nonsense. My faith in God carried me on every flight, in every battle and in every long deployment where I thought I couldn’t last another tour. Are you kidding? Many of my men and women I flew into battle with prayed with me at the nose of our aircraft before we flew off to face the enemy. As far as taking a bullet, I’ll tell you this. I would have rather died in a smoking pile of aluminum on some battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan than to be some pitiful progressive begging for a handout and bidding their time waiting for Sharia law.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:13 AM

And I’m not a perfect Christian, but my faith guides my life. That doesn’t really have a bearing on the argument though.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM

It’s suspicious how well opinion splits along religious lines, considering it doesn’t have any bearing on the argument.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 1:15 AM

@hawkdriver so god saved you? can you state with fact which god?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:19 AM

i just want to be able to base our policy decisions and 850 billion dollar budget on the right god. I’d hate to think we were obeying the wrong moral guide. what if it’s satan? after all it would make a significant policy difference if we had to treat all cows as sacred.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:24 AM

@hawkdriver so god saved you? can you state with fact which god?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Dale Carnegie graduate?

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:12 AM

You made the claim that we in the military are overwhelmingly “for” it. Show me your data first.

It’s suspicious how well opinion splits along religious lines, considering it doesn’t have any bearing on the argument.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Well, to your argument, I admit I would find it hard to take an Atheist very serious who thought homosexuality unnatural. I’m sure that’s why churches have become the object of many gays ire. I’m sure that many of them feel eventually, they have to fundamentally change our faiths or destroy them.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:26 AM

i just want to be able to base our policy decisions and 850 billion dollar budget on the right god. I’d hate to think we were obeying the wrong moral guide. what if it’s satan? after all it would make a significant policy difference if we had to treat all cows as sacred.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I guess you could base your morals on the same god the Soviets and Chinese communists did. Would that help?

Invest heavily in bullets. And vests.

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 1:26 AM

@hawkdriver so god saved you? can you state with fact which god?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Are you seriously trying to talk a man out of his faith?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:26 AM

i dunno after changing from a flat earth Praetor John perspective to a universal space is big science you should be used to adjusting your universal year.
also I’m not an atheist I just don’t think humans should try to worship invisible gods. period.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:29 AM

@hawkdriver nope just looking for facts

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:30 AM

@hawkdriver so god saved you? can you state with fact which god?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:19 AM
Are you seriously trying to talk a man out of his faith?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Aren’t you supposed to be looking for some death threat from earlier in the thread anyway? I have students in a 730 simulator period and can’t wait all night. If you did just exaggerate, tell me now so I can go to bed.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:30 AM

@hawkdriver nope just looking for facts

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:30 AM

Okay, the facts. I’m saved. That was easy. Now find that death threat.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:31 AM

@applebutter @hawkdriver not trying to change faiths just want to base all our money and time on facts lets build the right churches and statues. I’d hate to waste public funds.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Well, to your argument, I admit I would find it hard to take an Atheist very serious who thought homosexuality unnatural. I’m sure that’s why churches have become the object of many gays ire. I’m sure that many of them feel eventually, they have to fundamentally change our faiths or destroy them.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Churches are 99% of the reason this is an issue, so I can see how gays would focus there.

As an atheist, I find it hard to take anybody seriously who would form a view based on faith when there are so many facts available to the contrary. Facts eliminate the need for faith.

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 1:32 AM

@hawkdriver looking for a comment that mentioned taking them to the cliff, I might be wrong if you have people waiting on you please take care of them. It’s not like I haven’t backed down from foolish statements.

…saved from what?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Well… The New Testament, The Torah and the Koran pretty much all agree on this. They all agree that homosexuality is a sin. The punishments are different (and maybe extreme), but there you go. Still, they all proclaim that there is only one God and that homosexuality is a sin.

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 1:39 AM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:29 AM

I really am not concerned with your faith. I guess I would say I’m happy that you seem to be happy in your particular convictions. I know I’m supposed to care, but I get the feeling that some folks would never be open to considering my ramblings about how God has carried me through dangers? Life on Earth is too short.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:39 AM

@applebutter @hawkdriver not trying to change faiths just want to base all our money and time on facts lets build the right churches and statues. I’d hate to waste public funds.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:32 AM

You are one screwed up individual.

You think God is invisible, but you see the government building Churches.

Are you sure this is just gin?

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 1:40 AM

RightOFLeft on October 13, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Perfect, Atheism is your faith and I’m happy for you too, to be happy on your convictions.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:41 AM

Hey, if the Bible doesn’t approve of your favorite activity…

Find a new Bible!

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 1:41 AM

Hmmm…

Is there a mantra for that in Hinduism?

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 1:44 AM

Been in and out for a few hours, came back to see the state of the thread… not interested in yet another Hot Air atheism thread, so I’m out.

Have a good one, all.

malclave on October 13, 2010 at 1:46 AM

@Shorebird right after your done with your ecumenical council I’m sure you will all have agreed that gays deserve to die. sadly since the current heads of religion still can’t agree to talk to each other and there are no ecumenical heads of the muslim or jewish faiths and there will be much bloodshed to determine the titles.
@applebutter if there is a true faith shouldn’t the gov’t support it?
@hawkdriver there can never be a true faith for all people if history hasn’t shown you that perhaps the current conflict can?
@applebutter nope just gin.
so far just found the mass insurrection msg @hawkdriver I hope your happy I haven’t gotten to page 4 I’m sure that makes dissing gays ok.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Last night in my TKD class my instructor was telling me about his Friday night outing with another TKD instructor from a different studio in a completely different organization than ours. The other instructor was a wine bar and a guy walked up to him and ran his hands in his hair and said, “Are we going home together tonight.” Needless to say, he was very upset but had restrained himself and told my instructor that no one else better lay a hand on me tonight. (Remember, I live in CA… Male on male sexual harassment is commonplace but guys to speak up much about it because of the embarrassment of it.) Needless to say, some drank dude at another club they went to who stupidly bumped into their table almost knocking over their beers WHO THEN decided to pat this instructor’s chest to tell him it’s okay got the end result of the previous encounter. I kinda felt sorry for the guy as I was hearing the story. AND he got kicked out while both the instructor and my instructor got their beers comped.

Moral Of The Story: Yeah! I say let’s just let DADT fall by the wayside. Then let any of the gay men who want to do anything like this one guy did to the TKD instructor get a big, fat, juicy sexual harassment lawsuit against him and DOD by the straight guy ala TAILGATE. LMFAO! I CAN’T WAIT!!!! hahahaha…..

Sultry Beauty on October 13, 2010 at 1:47 AM

@hawkdriver looking for a comment that mentioned taking them to the cliff, I might be wrong if you have people waiting on you please take care of them. It’s not like I haven’t backed down from foolish statements.

…saved from what?

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Really, saved from what? I don’t enjoy people being purposely obtuse after they ask me a serious question.

And you know you won’t find the comment you’re looking for. You exaggerated or just plain made it up. I scanned for kill, killed, hate, murder and then cliff after your last comment (which didn’t appear once) and…no…one..inciting….or advocating violence to gays. Do you not feel a little empty having to use that kind of debate tactic to bolster your point of view?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:49 AM

@hawkdriver I hope your happy I haven’t gotten to page 4 I’m sure that makes dissing gays ok.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Why would I be happy that you use those tactics. Actually, it’s kind of sad. How does it feel to falsely accuse what are probably very thoughtful and gentle people of things that only exist in your imagination?

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:53 AM

so far just found the mass insurrection msg

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:47 AM

lol. Hey do us a favor and cut and paste that seriously scary call for insurrection that set you off on your trirade. I could almost read the code between the lines that was definately a call to all militias.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 2:03 AM

Zekecorlain

Wow! Just the fact that you proclaimed me to be an “ecumenical council,” shows how far you are sinking.

“All gays deserve to die?”

LOL!

But you still deserve major props for using “ecumenical council” in a sentence.

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Okay, crickets here and I’m off to bed. Zeke, there is an entire world out there that exist besides what you perceive in your mind.

G-nite. And God bless you guys.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 2:05 AM

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Shhhhh, be verwy, verwy quiet. Zeke is hunting for death threats by waskally wepublicans. (somewhere on page three, something about a cliff, I dunno. Off to the rack for me)

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Well, hawkdriver, I have to disagree with your assertion that allowing gays to serve openly will devastate military readiness, or destroy the fabric of military discipline. I saw this back to you based upon my 24 years of active duty service. From my experience, the only time this became an issue when someone more concerned with who was diddling what had a conniption fit when they learned about the orientation of someone else, and that orientation wasn’t limited to missionary, with their wife, with the lights off. The problem wasn’t the presence of the homosexual, but people that couldn’t handle that fact. I proudly served alongside several homosexuals, and would do so again. I actually had more trust in some of them, because they demonstrated they were more focused on mission than on social policy.

The classic instance was the cowardly outing of a very competent airman by a ‘very religious person’ on the occasion of the VRP’s separation, during their security debriefing. The individual he ‘outed’ was extremely competent at his job, particularly at an ancilliary task of operating a complex piece of equipment necessary to the mission, which few could do with any level of mastery. But, he was gone – along with the investment of well over a million dollars to train and qualify him for his duties. The rank hypocrisy of the entire situation (which the officer cadre of our unit was forced to deal with only because it became “official”) was revealed when the outed servicemember’s off base roomate was recalled from an overseas deployment (causing the cancellation of at least two missions due to crew shortage), and interviewed by our Commander. He was asked if he was aware his roomate was gay. He answered in the affirmative. He asked if he was aware that it was his duty to report this information. His response was along the lines of “should I also report all of the incidents of adultery I’ve witnessed on my current deployment, and on others?” The interview was terminated at that point, as following up on such charges would have rendered the unit basically NMC.

The problem isn’t the homosexuals. The problem is people, and I take it from your positions stated that you are among them, who have severe issues with their mere existence amongst them (to their knowledge), their inability to deal with it, and the resulting hoopla that follows.

Oh, and by the way, great job on recycling the Truman era talking points about keeping another group ‘segregated’, with the fearmongering staple being the ‘readiness’ issue.

I may not be all for taking (euphemism alert) nice long showers with guys I know to be homosexual, but their mere presence didn’t drive me, or the vast majority of the dedicated, mission focused professional I served with around the bend to the point they couldn’t function – which seems to be the rock upon which the readiness issue is based. Therefore, I have to completely reject it as a projectionistic fantasy.

Have a nice day with your trainees, and good luck in your retirement. I’m certainly enjoying mine.

Wind Rider on October 13, 2010 at 2:10 AM

also I’m not an atheist I just don’t think humans should try to worship invisible gods. period.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Worship a visible one if it makes you feel better. May I suggest Mao or Stalin?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 13, 2010 at 2:13 AM

Zekecorlain

Wow! Just the fact that you proclaimed me to be an “ecumenical council,” shows how far you are sinking.

“All gays deserve to die?”

LOL!

But you still deserve major props for using “ecumenical council” in a sentence.

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Also, be careful what you quote from Zekes comments. He’ll edit your comment to prove his point. Like this

“All gays deserve to die?

LOL!

shorebird on October 13, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Zeke/See, hawkdriver, I told you!!!/Zeke

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Wind Rider on October 13, 2010 at 2:10 AM

Your opinion. Your assertions about me based on nothing you know about me…are wrong. Sorry, that comment looked like it took a lot of time too.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 2:21 AM

Wind Rider on October 13, 2010 at 2:10 AM

But thanks also anyways for the backhanded compliment that seems to have pegged me as a bigot and intolerant of blacks too. The argument aways seems to go there.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 2:24 AM

Wind Rider is USAF(R). Different service culture, even in today’s military. Army and Marine culture demands unit cohesion, Air Force…not so much.(Much of his 2:10 comment was condensed from a Ann Althouse thread comment on this subject earlier today.)

flackcatcher on October 13, 2010 at 2:44 AM

Oh yeah, the Navy. Well, having done more floats than I care to admit, let’s just leave them alone.(IN THE NA–VY, YOU CAN BE A REAL MAN.)I couldn’t resist.

flackcatcher on October 13, 2010 at 2:55 AM

Regardless of the arguments for and against DADT, the federal judiciary should not be involved in this issue at all. The federal judge here does not have a clue as to what the military needs and really does not care. She is imposing her own values on the matter, dressing it up as “constitutional law.” It is not law, however, that she is enforcing.

Phil Byler on October 13, 2010 at 5:44 AM

Actually – the constitution says that congress has the right to organize the naval and land forces. Those acts of legislation used to organize them are subject to judicial review just as much as any other law until jurisdiction is restricted or removed.
dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Yes, judicial review in accordance to the UCMJ.

Wasn’t that kinda obvious?

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Before the UCMJ these were known as the “ Articles of War”

When was the last time you heard of a civilian being charged with an article 15?

When was the last time you heard of a civilian being subject to an article 32?
Or an article 134 catch all

If you came up with “Never” there’s a reason for that, its because civilians are not military personnel.

On the flip side when was the last time you heard of some civilian in a snipers nest, killing 37 people and getting a medal for it?

Er never?

Two different worlds.

DSchoen on October 13, 2010 at 5:51 AM

Wind Rider is USAF(R). Different service culture, even in today’s military. Army and Marine culture demands unit cohesion, Air Force…not so much.(Much of his 2:10 comment was condensed from a Ann Althouse thread comment on this subject earlier today.)

flackcatcher on October 13, 2010 at 2:44 AM

Thanks for the heads up. After going to Ann Althouse and reading his original “thesis” I can see he’s posted just about the same comment here. And quite a few other places. It was funny that it had all your basic blog counter talking point elements.

1. I’m hetreosexual but am going to throw together several paragraphs of argument in support the gay position.

2. I have X amount of years in the military and am speaking from experience. (BTW, good for you being able to enjoy retirement after only 24 years. All of my friends start second careers after military retirement)

3. I have an anecdote about how some virtuous just by being gay was the finest airman/marine/sailor/soldier I ever knew had their life destroyed by DADT.

4. We’ll need a comparative opinion about the heterosexuals you’ve know during the course of your service and they’ll have to of course be (a) worse airman/marine/sailor/soldier than this “outted by a coward” gay airman was. (Nice touch making the outer “religious”, BTW). ( Perhaps you’d like to hear a true story about an S6 1ST Lieutenant that we had to send home after repeatedly having complains filed against him for showing up at the same time another officer was going to the shower and coming on to him. And outright sexually harassing a young married duty drive for the Brigade Commander himself.)

5. In your opinion of course the heterosexuals you’ve know in the military will have behaved worse than the gays that you’ve known. Of course.

6. We’ll lastly be needing a shaming admonishment that if you don’t support repealing DADT, why then you’re no better than someone from the early civil rights days who would oppose ending segregation. (and it won’t matter if the person you’re commenting about has maybe even had a long career being a real champion of minorities, you’ll have to take them down a notch to give your point an inflated credibility.)

I therefore completely reject your entire comment (and all your other comments around the blogosphere) as a projectionistic sockpuppet fantasy.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 6:17 AM

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 6:17 AM

Dude, you did this all night?
Notice no pro-gays refuted my claim that you can be gay and serve; no one said, “Hey you’re wrong and AR 635-200 Chapter 15-2 (4) doesn’t apply?”
Because they don’t care about the truth, they don’t care about gays in the military, like all liberals it’s not about the issue; it’s about power. In this case, the power to force an institution to accept behavior that is detrimental to good order and discipline.
In the military what you think, believe, feel, or creed you abide by, is unimportant. It is what you do, your actions, which makes you either a good soldier or a bad one.
And here, at Hot Air, the pro-gay lobby doesn’t care about good soldiers, they care about mainstreaming homosexuality.

LincolntheHun on October 13, 2010 at 7:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7