Marine Corps chief: I’ll lead the drive to integrate gay Marines

posted at 4:21 pm on December 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

The Senate hearings on DADT established him as the military’s chief critic of repeal, with Newsweek speculating this past weekend that he might even resign over the new policy. That would have been big, bad news if so, as it would have sent a signal down the chain of command that quitting in protest is a proper reaction. Instead he’s going the opposite way, setting an example by vowing to lead the integration efforts himself. There are a lot of reasons why he might feel compelled to do that — he’s worried about men choosing not to reenlist, he fears the danger of distractions to troops in the field and wants to minimize the disruption, and/or his sense of duty will allow him no other course — but I admire him for putting the country’s needs ahead of his own objections. Something both sides of the debate can agree on, I hope:

Here is Amos’ full statement:

Fidelity is the essence of the United States Marine Corps. Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted to repeal Title 10, US Code 654 “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the United States Armed Forces.” As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines. On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years.”

Here’s a fun new scare ad from Citizens United wondering whether so many troops might flee the service in protest of ending DADT that Congress will be forced to … bring back the draft. Answer: Er, no. If worse came to worst and manpower was depleted, the “solution” wouldn’t be conscription but rather accelerated withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. The public long ago tired of both wars and we’re on our way out of both countries sooner rather than later anyway. But worse won’t come to worst, thanks in part to the example set by Amos and in part to the sense of duty of average troops. There may be an early spike in the number who refuse to reenlist in protest and there’ll surely be a few instances of harassment, but I think this Times piece surveying Marines for their reaction is probably a fair inkling of what’s to come. Plenty of misgivings, but few ultimatums. Exit quotation: “The first gay men (as the infantry is all male) are going to need very thick skins.”


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 5

What about sex change operations? Hormone therapies?

How long till the military gets sued for not providing adequate counselling for the sexually unsure?

Freddy on December 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I am expecting a remake of A Few Good Men with a DADT plot line. Hollywood would LOVE it.

“Do you know what a Code Red is?”

portlandon on December 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM

“The first gay men (as the infantry is all male) are going to need very thick skins.”

Why?

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM

See no problem. Amos is a team player.

Spathi on December 20, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Typo in your headline:

chief should say Commandant.

Ted Torgerson on December 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Freddy on December 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Freddy, I see your point, but we’re past that.

We’re going to have to deal with this issue. The stuff you mentioned will happen, of course it will. We’ll just have to wait and see how things will be dealt with, what guidance the DoD will come out with.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I was wondering about that myself. the gays will be treated like the muslims (hasan) they will be able to do pretty much anything they want. any criticism of them will be regarded as bigotry, homophobia, and punished.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM

…and wants to minimize the disruption, and/or his sense of duty will allow him no other course — but I admire him for putting the country’s needs ahead of his own objections.

Too bad many on the gay advocacy side couldn’t do this.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:29 PM

As my husband, major dad, so succinctly points out, they are going to have to rescind the UCMJ Article regarding sodomy and that hasn’t been mentioned.

tree hugging sister on December 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM

“The first gay men (as the infantry is all male) are going to need very thick foreskins.”

Marines necks aren’t the only thing that’s made like leather ….

Jerome Horwitz on December 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Too bad many on the gay advocacy side couldn’t do this.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Yep

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM

But, to the point of the post, General Amos is a true professional and, as a fellow Marine, I would expect him to be no less. He had a duty to speak his opinion for the sake of his troops and then follow his orders as directed.

tree hugging sister on December 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM

While I would be the last to appeal to the experience of pussy European nations in this regard, Israel has a serious military that fights battles and gays have worked fine in it. We can integrate gays in our military also.

thuja on December 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

His own sense of duty, to protect all Marines, is being used against him by those without honor, in the end he will help legitimize the indefensible.

LincolntheHun on December 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Ronaldus Magnus To Decide On 2012 Run “At Beginning Of The New Year”

On Sunday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian favorite, addressed his 2012 prospects. He told NPR’s Guy Raz that a presidential run is still a possibility.
“Well, it’s possible and I haven’t ruled it out, so I’ll probably be deciding at the beginning of the year,” Paul said. “And people ask me if I think about it a lot and I do because a lot of people ask me about it.”

Spathi on December 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM

It’s too bad that those that put their lifestyle choices ahead of their duty to serve could not follow the lead of this officer.

Who thinks that, now that DADT is repealed, that the gay agenda will STFU for a few years? Me neither.

ted c on December 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM

…I admire him for putting the country’s needs ahead of his own objections. Something both sides of the debate can agree on, I hope.

Cheers and Amen to that, AP.

And most assuredly, it’s his “sense of duty” which compels him. And will compel the vast majority of Marines and others in our military as well.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Too bad many on the gay advocacy side couldn’t do this.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:29 PM

this proves yet again, that to the gays their agenda is more important than national security or anything else. if the gays were so ‘patriotic’ they could continue to serve as they do now. but the forced acceptance of their lifestyle is the most important thing to them.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Where will the bisexual sailors live while onboard ship?

What about the cross-dressers, will a male watchstander wearing a skirt be allowed as OOD when the fleet admiral visits for an inspection?

This should be interesting.

Bishop on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Too bad many on the gay advocacy side couldn’t do this.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:29 PM

So true, Gen. Amos has just displayed more leadership skills than the entire joint chiefs of staff and Sec. Gates in one statement. Losing him now would be terrible and the most vocal activists would love to see him go.

fourdeucer on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

“…the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy.”

And a one, and a two, and a three…

… smile, people big smiles!!!

Seven Percent Solution on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Yup, NYT finds the answers they were seeking…

d1carter on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

REPEAL!!!!!!!!!! THE REPEAL-I imagine my Marine nephews will not trenlist-who wants to be oogled while showering?

Bullhead on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Israel has a serious military that fights battles and gays have worked fine in it. We can integrate gays in our military also.

thuja on December 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

did you notice the last lebanese war? israel lost.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

“The first gay men (as the infantry is all male) are going to need very thick foreskins.”

Why?

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I wondered that myself until I saw the typo. Then it all made sense to me.

turfmann on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

What about sex change operations? Hormone therapies?

How long till the military gets sued for not providing adequate counselling for the sexually unsure?

Freddy on December 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I hope we’re all around here for a while, so I can keep bringing all the naysaying up, and ask “well, wha happened to your doomsday predictions?”

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Fidelity is the essence of the United States Marine Corps. Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people

That represents a pretty powerful sentiment. They don’t want to do it, but He volunteered to lead from the front, because they have to do it anyway. We are lucky to have people like that, I don’t care what you think about the issue itself.

Mord on December 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Spathi on December 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Very insightful comment on the topic of gay marriage.

Oh, I forgot… RON PAUL!!!!!1111!!!!

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM

I hope we’re all around here for a while, so I can keep bringing all the naysaying up, and ask “well, wha happened to your doomsday predictions?”

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

and if you’re wrong? oh but you never let facts get in the way of your ideology…

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Are they going to issue two uniforms based on gender confusion, and will the women mind men using their showers since they feel uncomfortable with the real men?

This will open up the freak show, insane and distorted lifestyles inside of the military. Somehow that was overlooked and this is an issue of just letting hard fighting, good looking military men do some Broke Back Maneuvers.
Fools.

Hening on December 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM

but I admire him for putting the country’s needs ahead of his own objections

Which shows that he has more honor than those who put the needs of their personal peccadillo’s above those of the country’s.

Skywise on December 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM

And most assuredly, it’s his “sense of duty” which compels him. And will compel the vast majority of Marines and others in our military as well.
JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM

.
We shall see what the retention and re-up as well as the recruitment numbers are like pre- and post-DADT.
I’m not so sanguine.

LincolntheHun on December 20, 2010 at 4:40 PM

and if you’re wrong? oh but you never let facts get in the way of your ideology…

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Maybe this time we can get him to promise to eat his shorts if he’s wrong.

Jerome Horwitz on December 20, 2010 at 4:40 PM

and if you’re wrong? oh but you never let facts get in the way of your ideology…

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM

If I’m wrong, I’ll do as I always do on that rare occasion…I will apologize, admit my fault, and do whatever by whatever means necessary to “fix it”.

How about you? If you’re wrong?

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

If the Army or the Navy
Ever glance on Heaven’s scenes
They will find the streets of guarded
By cross-dressing US Queens

USQC (Unites States Queens Corp)

MaiDee on December 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I hope we’re all around here for a while, so I can keep bringing all the naysaying up, and ask “well, wha happened to your doomsday predictions?”
JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

So integrate coed living facilities?

Cross dressers, allowed or not and if not, why not?

Bishop on December 20, 2010 at 4:42 PM

How about you? If you’re wrong?

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I’m not wrong about the gays getting special rights in this case. they get to shower and live with the objects of their desires..heteros do not.

and we both know that gays will be treated like the muslims in the military (hasan) any criticism of them, or reporting them will be a sign of bigotry, homophobia, and will not be tolerated.

just like hasan’s peers were afraid to report him.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:43 PM

What about sex change operations? Hormone therapies?

How long till the military gets sued for not providing adequate counselling for the sexually unsure?

Freddy on December 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Standby for Sexual Tension Relief Rooms. Gays Only.

“After all, whats the point of being gay if you can’t hang out with men?”

BobMbx on December 20, 2010 at 4:43 PM

If the Army or the Navy
Ever glance on Heaven’s scenes
They will find the streets are guarded
By cross-dressing US Queens

USQC (Unites States Queens Corp)

FIFM

MaiDee on December 20, 2010 at 4:44 PM

this proves yet again, that to the gays their agenda is more important than national security or anything else. if the gays were so ‘patriotic’ they could continue to serve as they do now. but the forced acceptance of their lifestyle is the most important thing to them.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

It’s interesting to see the gays getting singled out for this, when many on the other side have threatened to quit over this. Are they also unpatriotic for doing so?

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM

How about you? If you’re wrong?
JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

.
He’ll apologize in English and not from a nuked city, unlike what happens if your wrong.

LincolntheHun on December 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM

So integrate coed living facilities?

Cross dressers, allowed or not and if not, why not?

Bishop on December 20, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Our military will figure it out. I’m extremely confident of that. NOW look who has more faith in our fighting men and women? I don’t ever doubt them and their ability to handle any change and adversity with the utmost professionalism.

All DADT does…ALL IT DOES…is let gays who are outed stay in the service, and not be discharged for simply being outed. THAT’S IT.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Not a ‘Doomsday’ prediction, but many said this very thing would happen.

Of course I know your argument, “They’ve been advocating for gay marriage all along anyway.” True. But now they have added ammunition and are using the DADT repeal to enhance their position.

Frankly, they’d be stupid not to. But to say that this and many other things predicted to happen won’t is naive.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

The Marine Corps Commanante is going to lead by example? He’s going to take a boy friend?

Skandia Recluse on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Doodie.

elraphbo on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Well, at least General Amos was respectful of the men and women under his command not to tell them to get out if they didn’t agree … like the other shytheads.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

It’s interesting to see the gays getting singled out for this, when many on the other side have threatened to quit over this. Are they also unpatriotic for doing so?

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM

no they’re not because they didn’t volunteer for this new ‘gay friendly’ military.

and I don’t see heteros pushing for the same ‘right’ to shower and live with the objects of their desire do you?

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

but I admire him for putting the country’s needs ahead of his own objections.

If only repeal activists had put their country’s needs in the middle of two wars before their desire to have the military officially approve of the gay lifestyle.

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I wonder how many gay soldiers will even reveal that they`re gay at all, knowing what they`d be in for.

ThePrez on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM

What a patriot! But, where’s your sense of duty? You should sign up.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

but I admire him for putting the country’s needs ahead of his own objections. Something both sides of the debate can agree on, I hope:

It is SO annoying that only conservatives (esp. Social cons) must be the ones to give up principles for the good of the country

Liberals NEVER have to do that. They just get fussy and whine until another conservative “sacrifices” for the greater good

picklesgap on December 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

so have we FINALLY seen the last of “Gay Pride” parades, and the like?

if gays TRULY want to be treated equally then ALL the days and events dedicated to singling them out as “GAY!” must stop.

can’t have it both ways…ok, shouldn’t be able to have it both ways…but they will.

Justrand on December 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

All DADT does…ALL IT DOES…is let gays who are outed stay in the service, and not be discharged for simply being outed. THAT’S IT.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

it gives the gays special rights…which is what the gay ‘rights’ movement is all about…along with silencing those who disagree.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

It’s interesting to see the gays getting singled out for this, when many on the other side have threatened to quit over this. Are they also unpatriotic for doing so?

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM

No, they didn’t sign up for the new, fabulous military where accepting everyone’s lifestyle choices comes before military readiness. They signed up to focus on fighting.

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

MailDee, did you inhale too much smoke while in the CampFire Girls?

The Marines didn’t want this, they are simply showing their loyalty to the oath they took, that demands they follow the orders of those appointed over them.

What’s going to happen will be subtle, much like the inclusion of females more and more into the military has lessened its effectiveness. That’s not to say that there are not brave and good female soldiers. And there are, and will now be some open gay soldiers of equal merit.

However, the overall cohesion, this introduction of some of outside society’s “diversity” is going to harm a unit.

It might not cause munities, it might not harm re-enlistments too much, but there are going to problems, there is going to be more issues to be dealt with. It’s like women in vital assignments on board ships that go preggers before deployment, like the High School like crap that now takes place in units with both sexes.

It won’t be that much of a notable thing, but it will be there and it will cost effectiveness and waste the lives of our troops.

TiminPhx on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Then the Boy Scouts. Think I’m kidding?

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM

All DADT does…ALL IT DOES…is let gays who are outed stay in the service, and not be discharged for simply being outed. THAT’S IT.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Dude, I think you should read more. The DoD is holding off repealing DADT until they put people through “training and education”, and make adjustments to procedures and facilities. That’s a bit more than what you stated.

Secondly, you know as well as I do that it doesn’t stop here.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I think it will be at least a year and a half until this is fully implemented, and another 4-5 years before there is any kind of stability on open service.

And this is a very smart play by the Commandant. Not only does he put any question of his loyalty aside, but he gets to implement the new policy as he sees fit. That means that he can minimize the impact by deciding which units to transition at what time, or maybe even give waivers to units headed to hard fighting in Afghanistan.

thuljunior on December 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Our military will figure it out. I’m extremely confident of that. NOW look who has more faith in our fighting men and women? I don’t ever doubt them and their ability to handle any change and adversity with the utmost professionalism.

All DADT does…ALL IT DOES…is let gays who are outed stay in the service, and not be discharged for simply being outed. THAT’S IT.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Why don’t you go and sign up? Put your money where your mouth is. Or is being the Unit Under Study in a liberal social experiment too much for you?

BobMbx on December 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Will the Corp now use YMCA by the Village People to recruit?

Blake on December 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM

FLASH THIS JUST IN. Barney Frank enlists in the USMC!

MaiDee on December 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM

TiminPhx on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Well said.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

If you really believe that’s all there is to this then you have signed-on for the rose colored scenario.

You said the military will figure this out, yet it was civilian control who decided to “figure out” DADT for them now wasn’t it? Yet congressmen aren’t the ones who will deal directly with what repeal really means in the barracks, boot camps, ships and bases.

Now answer the question, cross dressers allowed or not? I mean it’s just a lifestyle choice and no harm to anyone, correct?

Bishop on December 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Did you read the Generals list of priorities and the order of them?
1. Loyalty to the constitution
2. the Commander in Chief
3. the Chain of Command and
4. the American people
The gay lobby has always put their sexual proclivities above all else, now you are trying to say you had faith in them all along.

fourdeucer on December 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM

That means that he can minimize the impact by deciding which units to transition at what time, or maybe even give waivers to units headed to hard fighting in Afghanistan.

thuljunior on December 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM

That won’t be tolerated. Any hint at hesitation for even a single unit will spark outrage and response from the White House.

Hesitation can’t possibly serve a military goal. It must be a refusal to sanction the gay lifestyle. And that can’t be allowed.

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM

It’s worth noting that with minimal disruption at the senior brass levels over the integration of openly-serving homosexuals into the military, the leadership will be able to point out the numerous inherent contradictions in the new policies, and particular points where a Leaders’ hands are tied in deal with their Soldiers.

In other words, by keeping the guys who don’t want to do it in charge, you increase the likelihood that they’ll do it right, rather than the guys who will hustle the change through for the sake of agenda.

Sgt Steve on December 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM

it gives the gays special rights…which is what the gay ‘rights’ movement is all about…along with silencing those who disagree.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

What!?! What “special right” do gays get by a repeal of DADT???

A lot of you really need to separate these things. The “gay rights movement” does not mean that all, or most, gays believe in every group’s wants. The only, and I mean ONLY, gay-centric organization I have ever been a part of is GOProud. Not a single other group represents me at all, nor do I endorse (most likely, I fight them) the many gay advocacy groups (read: Lefty-loos) out there.

There’s no grand conspiracy of gays to “take down” the country piece by piece. Should all Christians be judged by the Phelps clan? Same difference.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

All I know for a fact is this: last month at drill I sat in a room with a dozen company grade and field grade officers and senior enlisted folks discussing this issue … and every last one of them expressed opinions ranging from desperation to horror to fear to disgust at the thought of DADT being repealed.

The military is being asked – during war time – to conduct a social experiment that puts the sexual proclivities of a very small minority ahead of the safety and well-being of the vast majority.

And if you don’t care about the soldiers and Marines on the ground, how about the other obvious fact: they’re putting their little social experiment ahead of the MISSION. In a war that our current Secretary of State just called a fight against an existential threat.

It is frankly … unconscionable. Unbelievable. Tragic.

As I sat in that room and listened to the debate, the end result of this became abundantly clear: good men will die for political stupidity, the most specious kind of cultural bickering.

Ironically enough, I was probably the most liberal one in the room. I personally don’t much care.

But I know this, beyond question: in the combat arms branches, many soldiers DO care. Many leaders. Junior (and not so junior) officers; NCO’s and senior NCO’s. Yes, for some its moral or religious; but for ALL it is a concern about ALL of their men, the 99% that shouldn’t have their lives played with.

MEN. WILL. DIE.

Period. If you don’t believe it or don’t understand it, you’ve never served in a combat infantry unit.

Men are going to die. Men that don’t have to.

Does it matter if they sexually integrate frickin’ Air Force base post offices and mess halls here in the States? Of course not.

But on the roads of Iraq and the combat outposts of Afghanistan, when a few dozen men are alone against the elements and the enemy …

Men are going to die. Needlessly.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps – God bless him – is the only senior leader to both understand this and try to prevent it. Now he’s left with no choice but to try to make the best of it.

To try to set the example so that the fewest good men die.

But die they will. I guarantee.

Men will die. And the mission will be threatened. The tip of our spear will be weakened.

And in weeks or months, someone just like me – some still wet behind the ears lieutenant of the infantry – will sit down in his CHU or tent and write the first letter home to some mother or father … and that young officer will try to find a way to explain why their son had to die.

FOR. NOTHING.

The rest is just politics. This is truth.

Professor Blather on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

There will be a handful of activitsts that make initial enlistments, only to find that flamboyant behavior will still run against standards of professional behavior and will continue to make noise. Unfortunately, the gays that have already been quietly serving will have to deal with the fact that their flamboyant bretheren (sisteren?) have poisoned the well for them.

Forced acceptance will also breed a quiet, yet toxic resentment as well. There is already a lot of quiet resentment towards females and minorities that is driven by the military’s very PC affirmative action and “EO” policies. The military will find some way to make the transition as painful as possible.

erakis on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

no they’re not because they didn’t volunteer for this new ‘gay friendly’ military.

Sure they did. Nothing in their contract says the policy on gays will or will not change. The only things you are volunteering for in the military are:

1. The high honor of serving your country.

2. The endurance of many hardships that make you uncomfortable, or may even cost you your life.

When you sign up, you sign up to follow the chain of command.

No one ever promised them “The military will always do things the same way for ever and ever.”

and I don’t see heteros pushing for the same ‘right’ to shower and live with the objects of their desire do you?

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Gays in the military already have that ability, so they aren’t advocating for that either.

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

it gives the gays special rights…which is what the gay ‘rights’ movement is all about…along with silencing those who disagree.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Bet the house on that. That is exactly what will happen. I simply can’t what to see what concessions the Chaplin Corps is going to have to give up. This is going to get ugly, and a lot of good people are going to get hammered simply because they think homosexuality is a un-natural.

Hog Wild on December 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Why haven`t some here signed up before DADT was repealed? If supporting a position (one way or the other) hinges on serving in the military, why did`t you all sign up?

And before you go all bat-sh*t crazy on me, I would have preferred DADT stay in place, it worked.

ThePrez on December 20, 2010 at 4:58 PM

A lot of you really need to separate these things. The “gay rights movement” does not mean that all, or most, gays believe in every group’s wants.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Believe me, I and most everyone else gets that. The thing you aren’t seeing is the the “gay rights movement”, the “gay lobby”, “crazy gay leftists loons”, or whatever else you want to call them … are the ones running the show.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I hereby predict a future Hollywood military movie.

The JAG will be investigating a case where a Soldier/Marine allegedly allowed a man under his command get killed by the enemy because he was gay. The prosecution’s case will go nowhere until the last 15 minutes when the Ultimate Evidence of guilt will be found.

Alternative: The guilty party murdered the man and made it look like the enemy did it.

Call it “A Few Good Men 2″

Stars:
George Clooney as the lead JAG prosecutor
Matt Damon as the defendant
Co-Starring
Whoopi Goldberg providing the Ultimate Evidence
Rosie O’Donnell presiding Judge
Chris O’Donnell as the victim

Cameo by Jack Nicholson

hadsil on December 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM

“The first gay men (as the infantry is all male) are going to need very thick skins.”

Still waiting for a ‘Why?” on this one.

This question is absurd anyway. They couldn’t have thick skins before? And if they are going to have to deal with issues requiring said “thick skins”, then why the need for the remedial training, etc.?

If anyone does or says anything which riles those supposed “thick skins” wouldn’t that be actionable against the offender of the “thick skinned” ones?

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 5:01 PM

There’s no grand conspiracy of gays to “take down” the country piece by piece. Should all Christians be judged by the Phelps clan? Same difference.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Nope, but Christians tend to repudiate the Phelps clan and its objectives. You find almost no one defending them.

Gay activist groups, on the other hand, are welcomed with open arms for the most part. And the overwhelming majority of gays vote for the left-wing objectives they pursue.

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 5:01 PM

I really don’t get the hysterical hand wringing… it does you absolutely no good… just sit back… and watch… and laugh…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjAXJaFydwM

Nor do I get the nonchalance from some people… there is a lot of delusion in this crowd too… when there’s a striking mismatch in values, parents aren’t going to support their child going to “die for the telephone company”(being a little esoteric)

ninjapirate on December 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Sgt Steve on December 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Good point.

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

What!?! What “special right” do gays get by a repeal of DADT???

I just told you, can’t you read? again, the gays will get to live and shower with the objects of their desire…and the heteros will not.

the gays will be treated like the muslims…any criticism of them will be punished. its why hasan’s peers were afraid to report him.

A lot of you really need to separate these things. The “gay rights movement” does not mean that all, or most, gays believe in every group’s wants. The only, and I mean ONLY, gay-centric organization I have ever been a part of is GOProud. Not a single other group represents me at all, nor do I endorse (most likely, I fight them) the many gay advocacy groups (read: Lefty-loos) out there.

There’s no grand conspiracy of gays to “take down” the country piece by piece. Should all Christians be judged by the Phelps clan? Same difference.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

gopproud supports gay marriage. so the difference between them and lefty loons is what again?

gay marriage means the end of religious liberty in this country..and the right to disagree with the gays.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Professor Blather on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Thanks for posting that.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

One last thing since the forty or so years when I most needed guidance, discipline and faith the order was GOD, country then the Corps.

fourdeucer on December 20, 2010 at 5:03 PM

MaiDee

That was some serious jackassery on your part.

tree hugging sister on December 20, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Bet the house on that. That is exactly what will happen. I simply can’t what to see what concessions the Chaplin Corps is going to have to give up. This is going to get ugly, and a lot of good people are going to get hammered simply because they think homosexuality is a un-natural.

Hog Wild on December 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM

absolutely. reading romans 1 will be considered a hate crime..which is what the gay ‘rights’ movement has done in other countries…outlaw any criticism of them.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Believe me, I and most everyone else gets that. The thing you aren’t seeing is the the “gay rights movement”, the “gay lobby”, “crazy gay leftists loons”, or whatever else you want to call them … are the ones running the show.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I sincerely hope you’re right about that first part…Honestly, I don’t see that sentiment in a heck of a lot of comments here. Just the opposite, in fact. That’s just my own observation/opinion.

On the last part…the lefty loons only think they’re running the show. They’re loud, obnoxious, and constantly babbling. I hear this a lot: “Why don’t the moderate/conservative gays stand up and fight the lefty ones?”

Well, WE ARE! Heck, hello! *waves hand* And it ain’t just me, look around the comments just here at HA and you’ll see.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

No, they didn’t sign up for the new, fabulous military where accepting everyone’s lifestyle choices comes before military readiness. They signed up to focus on fighting.

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

No, they signed up to serve, in a manner that yes, would likely involve a lot of fighting, but would also involve other responsibilities. No one promised them that there wouldn’t be other hardships, or that the hardships would never change.

Even if you think this specific hardship is unnecessary and bad policy, that too goes with the territory of the military – sometimes your commanders make bad, even deadly, mistakes. That is and has always been a part of the military.

The point remains – if gays are unpatriotic for wanting repeal, then their opponents are unpatriotic for quitting as a result.

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

No, they signed up to serve, in a manner that yes, would likely involve a lot of fighting, but would also involve other responsibilities. No one promised them that there wouldn’t be other hardships, or that the hardships would never change.

Even if you think this specific hardship is unnecessary and bad policy, that too goes with the territory of the military – sometimes your commanders make bad, even deadly, mistakes. That is and has always been a part of the military.

The point remains – if gays are unpatriotic for wanting repeal, then their opponents are unpatriotic for quitting as a result.

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Um…no. You signed up for hardship, yes. But you’re not unpatriotic for saying, “Hey, maybe I won’t re-enlist seeing as how the civilian leadership is now taking unnecessary risks.”

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 5:06 PM

did you notice the last lebanese war? israel lost.

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM

But it wasn’t the gays. It’s Israel’s ridiculous rules of combat. Before an Israeli unit engages in combat, they consult their human rights lawyer. I’m trying hard to come up with a joke about just how silly this is, but I don’t have the talents of Ann Coulter.

thuja on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Last joke: New USMC recruit Barney frank has already been promoted to glans-corporal.

I make this prediction right now. (and NOT just the USMC. unless this PC madness and sissification end abruptly, Iraq will be the last US Miltary victory. EVAH!!!!

MaiDee on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Rush made a good point today.

If there is no issue for men to have to shower with the gay men, then why not have them share showers with the women recruits as well? It’s a good question that the libs should answer.

jeffn21 on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

The only, and I mean ONLY, gay-centric organization I have ever been a part of is GOProud.

You know what? GOProud thinks they’re associated with conservatives. But we don’t.

You can’t be a conservative and gay. Just like you can’t bea pro-choice and be a Catholic.

Being a homosexual is wrong. No matter how hard you try, or what laws get passed, you cannot make me accept your lifestyle as anything other than abnormal. You can limit my speech, threaten me with incarceration, sieze my property…but you’ll never change my mind. And that is the goal.

And whatever inalienable right you claim to be a homosexual, I also use it to claim my right to express my opinion about homosexuals, free from persecution and labels of bigot, gay-basher, etc.

BobMbx on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

If worse came to worst and manpower was depleted, the “solution” wouldn’t be conscription but rather accelerated withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gee, sounds like a plan for some.

Exit quotation: “The first gay men (as the infantry is all male) are going to need very thick skins.”

And vice-versa? I think some of the concerns about sharing showers, lives being endangered and the like are silly (unless it really does hamper recruitment), but I’d like to know what sort of politically-correct disciplinary action (if any) might be given to military folks who, say, tell homosexuals who are eager to ‘share’ their intimate stories with them that it’s too much information and they don’t want to talk about it (Kinda like the spirit of DADT without the prior consequences). Would that be a hostile response and subject to a reprimand?

In this “openly gay” environment will there be any limits to how “open” they can be (which a heterosexual could construe as “harassment”)?

Buy Danish on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

When you sign up, you sign up to follow the chain of command.

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Funny we’re worried about telling this to straights now. Why couldn’t we do this with gays before?

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Sure they did. Nothing in their contract says the policy on gays will or will not change. The only things you are volunteering for in the military are:

1. The high honor of serving your country.

2. The endurance of many hardships that make you uncomfortable, or may even cost you your life.

When you sign up, you sign up to follow the chain of command.

No one ever promised them “The military will always do things the same way for ever and ever.”

uh huh…and they are not required to continue serving then are they?

Gays in the military already have that ability, so they aren’t advocating for that either.

RINO in Name Only on December 20, 2010 at 4:56
PM

obviously they are. I don’t see them requesting separate facilities like are in place for heteros do you?

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Funny we’re worried about telling this to straights now. Why couldn’t we do this with gays before?

catmman on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Right? Straight soldiers signed up to take orders and they should have to deal with it. But gay soldiers don’t like what they signed up for? Change the rules.

amerpundit on December 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Lifestyle uber ales

james23 on December 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM

On the last part…the lefty loons only think they’re running the show. They’re loud, obnoxious, and constantly babbling. I hear this a lot: “Why don’t the moderate/conservative gays stand up and fight the lefty ones?”

Well, WE ARE! Heck, hello! *waves hand* And it ain’t just me, look around the comments just here at HA and you’ll see.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

I hope you’re right … about them thinking they’re running the show, but they sure as hell are loud, and are getting megabucks from somewhere.

The solution is conservative gays in the military.

darwin on December 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Gay Marine.
An oxymoron.

JellyToast on December 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM

I sincerely hope you’re right about that first part…Honestly, I don’t see that sentiment in a heck of a lot of comments here. Just the opposite, in fact. That’s just my own observation/opinion.

On the last part…the lefty loons only think they’re running the show. They’re loud, obnoxious, and constantly babbling. I hear this a lot: “Why don’t the moderate/conservative gays stand up and fight the lefty ones?”

Well, WE ARE! Heck, hello! *waves hand* And it ain’t just me, look around the comments just here at HA and you’ll see.

JetBoy on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

JetBoy, i appreciate your sentiment.

AND, based on some of the actual gay people I know that have actually served in the GWOT, they are good patriots that do their job and serve their country, without any sort of “fabulous” stereotypes.

They are just “normal” gay soldiers, nothing more.

My problem is this — this repeal is NOT about those “normal gay soldiers” who actualyl love the military. What is happening now is that the national gay organizations are pushing for:
-military recognition of gay marriage
-military recognition of gay ‘spouse’ benefits
-punishment for speaking out against homosexuality
-punishment for military chaplains that carry around new testmanets

see, those things above don’t apply to my gay soldier friends — they could CARE LESS about those things. this is why i actually support DADT, because the actual gay soliders will still just be gay soldiers.

the thing that makes me furious though is that the San Francisco gay orgranizations is just using DADT to try to fight gay marriage.

Gay marriage can’t win at the ballot box, so the activists are shoving it through the MILITARY. in a time of WAR.

like i said, it’s not the gay soldiers i fear — it’s the gay activists who could care LESS about the military!

picklesgap on December 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM

But it wasn’t the gays. It’s Israel’s ridiculous rules of combat. Before an Israeli unit engages in combat, they consult their human rights lawyer. I’m trying hard to come up with a joke about just how silly this is, but I don’t have the talents of Ann Coulter.

thuja on December 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

how do you know? in the new gay-friendly PC military, it seems like that is SOP

right4life on December 20, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Professor Blather on December 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM

What would you have us do? We must make this work, now that it is to be policy. It is either that or get out.

Otis B on December 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5