Don't Ask, Don't Tell challenged

[leekohler]

Wow- let's see where this goes.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid75258.asp

Maj. Margaret Witt took the podium Friday at a rally to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and, with the Capitol as her backdrop, said, “For 18 years I served in the military, before the Air Force discharged me because they found out I was a lesbian. But I don’t want to leave, and I’m challenging the government’s attempt to discharge me.”

Even as Witt spoke, legal minds at the White House are mulling what to do with her challenge, a court case that will likely force the Obama administration to take its first official action on the military policy prohibiting lesbians, gays, and bisexuals from serving openly. The Department of Justice (DOJ) currently has until April 3 to decide whether they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Witt’s case -- a ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals that some believe will weaken the law because it suggests it must be applied on a case-by-case basis rather than indiscriminately.

“The Bush administration probably would have argued it just because they hate us,” says Bridget Wilson, an openly gay attorney in private practice who has worked with LGBT military issues for 35 years. “But it’s a new day in Washington. My sense is that they don’t want to appeal this because they don’t want to get into a battle over ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ right now.”

President Obama has flatly endorsed a repeal of the ban. Asked what guidance the White House is providing to the Department of Justice on this issue, a spokesperson for the administration responded, "The President supports changing ‘don’t ask, don't tell.’ As part of a long-standing pledge, he has also begun consulting closely with Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen so that this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

But what the Justice Department will ultimately do is anybody’s guess, in part because the ruling on Witt v. United States Department of the Air Force does not necessarily provide a direct challenge to "don’t ask, don’t tell." If it did, the DOJ would be much more likely to seek a Supreme Court review, because the department would be compelled to defend the law.

Major Witt, a highly decorated nurse, was suspended from service in 2004 -- two years shy of full retirement benefits -- and discharged under the ban in 2007. When her attempt to fight the dismissal was denied a hearing by a federal judge, her lawyers appealed the decision and the ninth circuit ultimately ruled that Witt had a right to her day in court. The decision concluded that, although the government had previously been able to discharge any LGB person under the policy, new protections provided by the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling now required the government to actually prove that an individual’s presence was indeed harming unit cohesion. The ruling was also carefully constructed to only apply to Major Witt’s case.

“The court did not rule on the constitutionality of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but it said because of a new precedent, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ has a higher burden to meet in order for an individual to be kicked out,” explains C. Dixon Osburn, CEO of Osburn Management Consulting Company and former executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that advocates for repeal of the policy.

[luminosity]

The policy is both absurd and a farce. The idea that homosexuality is in any way detrimental to either an individual's fitness to serve their country or any unit's fitness is ludicrous and will be cast into the garbage bin of history in due time.

If there is anyone in any unit who cannot handle a gay person alongside them, they need to be told to either handle it professionally or see about getting themselves reassigned into a non-essential position.

Of course, the reality is that probably all soldiers have served alongside gays, but just haven't known about it.

[leekohler]

The policy is both absurd and a farce. The idea that homosexuality is in any way detrimental to either an individual's fitness to serve their country or any unit's fitness is ludicrous and will be cast into the garbage bin of history in due time.

If there is anyone in any unit who cannot handle a gay person alongside them, they need to be told to either handle it professionally or see about getting themselves reassigned into a non-essential position.

Of course, the reality is that probably all soldiers have served alongside gays, but just haven't known about it.

"Due time" was over 16 years ago.

[CalBoy]

What I want to know is why Obama hasn't signed an executive order ending the policy outright.

He is the commander-in-chief and has full power to do so.

What is "consulting" with Gates going to accomplish? :confused:

[luminosity]

"Due time" was over 16 years ago.

I'm not sure why I said that. I agree with you.

I also agree that Obama ought to just sign an executive order and be done with it. And then order into his office anyone who feels they can't handle it (be they a private or a general).

[leekohler]

I'm not sure why I said that. I agree with you.

I also agree that Obama ought to just sign an executive order and be done with it. And then order into his office anyone who feels they can't handle it (be they a private or a general).

I agree- this should already be over. I guess we'll see what happens.

[Macaddicttt]

What I want to know is why Obama hasn't signed an executive order ending the policy outright.

He is the commander-in-chief and has full power to do so.

What is "consulting" with Gates going to accomplish? :confused:

While I agree that the policy to be overturned (it never really made any sense to me), I believe that the people that need the most convincing are the heads of the military. Much like with integration of the armed forces, the military command had it in their head that it would hamper the ability for the military to perform, which turned out to be total bunk. I don't think Obama wants to create any sort of hostility between him and the military command, and therefore is taking it slow.

EDIT: I'm not making any judgment as to whether this caution is good or bad, I'm just explaining the thought process for not just getting rid of it immediately.

[MacNut]

What is "consulting" with Gates going to accomplish? :confused:Probably find a way to make sure that the people that do come out don't get beaten to a pulp by the other solders. Im sure there are a lot of bigot solders.

[CalBoy]

I don't think Obama wants to create any sort of hostility between him and the military command, and therefore is taking it slow.

That could be, but as the commander-in-chief, it's his responsibility to demonstrate strong leadership.

This policy has been terrible for 16 years, and everyone is aware of how baseless it is.

Like Truman, Obama has an active battlefield to make soldiers realize that integration isn't a bad thing. He should act, and he should act now.

[.Andy]

Surely this will lead to the downfall of the American military as we know it as gays seduce commanding officers and persuade them to make love not war.

[és:]

That could be, but as the commander-in-chief, it's his responsibility to demonstrate strong leadership.

This policy has been terrible for 16 years, and everyone is aware of how baseless it is.

Like Truman, Obama has an active battlefield to make soldiers realize that integration isn't a bad thing. He should act, and he should act now.

I agree, he should definitely act. The thing is, I've heard that many times on many different subject. Obama must act now. I think we do need to give him some time to get these things done. What is it now, 50 odd days?

[bruinsrme]

I served on subs and there were som gays on board, every knew who they were but it didn't seem to matter much except for a few who were convinced just being near them would make them gay.

the law is antiquated but not what happens when some find out someone prefers the same sex.

[leekohler]

Surely this will lead to the downfall of the American military as we know it as gays seduce commanding officers and persuade them to make love not war.

Haha! :)

On a more serious note- I would say the vast majority of us are fiercely competitive. Many of us are pros at survival too- having been on our own at a young age after our families cut us off. You learn very quickly in those situations.

[CalBoy]

What is it now, 50 odd days?

He's moved very quickly on issues like the environment, abortion, etc to reverse the past, why not this?

What's even more relevant is that this is one thing that is almost exclusively under his control, so it is conceivably easier to accomplish this than other orders he has signed in recent weeks (like funding for abortion, stem cell research, etc).

I had mentioned in a previous thread to Lee that Obama is going to be similar to past presidents for gay rights. Informal, sentimental support followed by apathy and forcing the courts to be the "bad guys."

I doubt that in another 50 days the policy will have changed at all.

[Dmac77]

What I want to know is why Obama hasn't signed an executive order ending the policy outright.

He is the commander-in-chief and has full power to do so.

What is "consulting" with Gates going to accomplish? :confused:

Obama hasn't repealed don't ask don't tell, because it would be unpopular with many independents. He needs their votes to be reelected in 2012. Obama is a politician, he is no different then the others. He'll do whatever gets him reelected.

I hope that Maj. Witt wins her case. It is absolutely stupid to think that a gay person can't defend their country as well as a straight person can. If someone has a problem serving with a homosexual, they obviously aren't mature enough or professional enough to serve in the military.

Don

[és:]

He's moved very quickly on issues like the environment, abortion, etc to reverse the past, why not this? Maybe because he was too busy moving on issues like environment, abortions, etc.

If he did this, we'd be in a thread now talking about why Obama hadn't sorted stem cell or abortions.

My point is that we have to give him a certain amount of time to do all of these things. In a year or two when the most important things are not seen to, then it will be hammer time (can't touch this...), but after 50 days? I think it is a little harsh to be on his back already.


I had mentioned in a previous thread to Lee that Obama is going to be similar to past presidents for gay rights. Informal, sentimental support followed by apathy and forcing the courts to be the "bad guys."

I doubt that in another 50 days the policy will have changed at all.

Well, doubt is one thing. What actually happens is entirely different. All I'm saying is for people to have a little patience (I need tiiii iiii iiiime...).

[CalBoy]

Obama hasn't repealed don't ask don't tell, because it would be unpopular with many independents. He needs their votes to be reelected in 2012. Obama is a politician, he is no different then the others. He'll do whatever gets him reelected.

Problem with that theory is that Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't really popular, not even with independents.

Only extremely conservative Republicans like the policy (or a more extreme version of it).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/18/ST2008071802580.html

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
<snip>
Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.

[Gelfin]

He's moved very quickly on issues like the environment, abortion, etc to reverse the past, why not this?

What's even more relevant is that this is one thing that is almost exclusively under his control, so it is conceivably easier to accomplish this than other orders he has signed in recent weeks (like funding for abortion, stem cell research, etc).

I had mentioned in a previous thread to Lee that Obama is going to be similar to past presidents for gay rights. Informal, sentimental support followed by apathy and forcing the courts to be the "bad guys."

I doubt that in another 50 days the policy will have changed at all.

I do understand and sympathize with the impatience, but (perhaps predictably) I would be hesitant to jump in with both feet. Remember, this is a different military than we had eight years ago. Recruitment standards have been lowered, padding out the ranks with felons and gang members. Evangelical Christianity has been all but formally institutionalized within the services.

Frankly, being outed in the contemporary U.S. Armed Forces might be about as safe as being outed in a Wyoming Country and Western bar. Any policy change that does not anticipate and proactively prevent "training accidents" would be irresponsible.

[leekohler]

I do understand and sympathize with the impatience, but (perhaps predictably) I would be hesitant to jump in with both feet. Remember, this is a different military than we had eight years ago. Recruitment standards have been lowered, padding out the ranks with felons and gang members. Evangelical Christianity has been all but formally institutionalized within the services.

Frankly, being outed in the contemporary U.S. Armed Forces might be about as safe as being outed in a Wyoming Country and Western bar. Any policy change that does not anticipate and proactively prevent "training accidents" would be irresponsible.

The reason our military is the way it is now, is precisely because we put these kinds of limits on it. If it were fully integrated for the past 16 years, like it should have been, I doubt you'd be saying this now.

Just because there is risk involved, doesn't mean that you continue to discriminate against those who are being victimized in the first place. The good thing about doing away with DADT is being able to prevent "training accidents". Gay people will be able to address threats with superiors openly and honestly.

[Dmac77]

Maybe because he was too busy moving on issues like environment, abortions, etc.

If he did this, we'd be in a thread now talking about why Obama hadn't sorted stem cell or abortions.

My point is that we have to give him a certain amount of time to do all of these things. In a year or two when the most important things are not seen to, then it will be hammer time (can't touch this...), but after 50 days? I think it is a little harsh to be on his back already.

Some things are a more important then stem cell research, like stopping discrimination against a group of people.

Don

[CalBoy]

I think it is a little harsh to be on his back already.

One of the quirks of American politics is that if you aren't on the President's case, the Administration feels very comfortable with where it is.

My feelings are one part genuine frustration, and one part proactive protestor. ;)

We can't afford to let Obama "Clinton" this one.

Well, doubt is one thing. What actually happens is entirely different. All I'm saying is for people to have a little patience (I need tiiii iiii iiiime...).

After Prop 8, the March 5th oral arguments before the California Supreme Court and a few other stories concerning how backwards the US is in regards to gay rights relative to the rest of the world, I've lost my patience.

This queen is pissed.

Any policy change that does not anticipate and proactively prevent "training accidents" would be irresponsible.

That's true, and it saddens me that it has to be considered in that way.

I guess I want something more than an empty promise and colorful rhetoric, and I feel we've all waited long enough.

[és:]

One of the quirks of American politics is that if you aren't on the President's case, the Administration feels very comfortable with where it is.

With respect, that isn't just American politics.

My feelings are one part genuine frustration, and one part proactive protestor. ;)

Well, your frustrated part is going to have to kick your proactive protestor in the butt and get itself out on the street! A few disgruntled MR users, me included more often than not, isn't going to make a difference.

We can't afford to let Obama "Clinton" this one.

That is for damned sure.


After Prop 8, the March 5th oral arguments before the California Supreme Court and a few other stories concerning how backwards the US is in regards to gay rights relative to the rest of the world, I've lost my patience.


I understand that. Damn, I agree with that. Those things, however, can't be piled onto Obama. Not just yet, at least :D

[CalBoy]

With respect, that isn't just American politics.

True, and yet not comforting in the least. :p;)

Well, your frustrated part is going to have to kick your proactive protestor in the butt and get itself out on the street! A few disgruntled MR users, me included more often than not, isn't going to make a difference.

Please, I'm about to graduate from Berkeley.

Protesting is in the blood! ;)


I understand that. Damn, I agree with that. Those things, however, can't be piled onto Obama. Not just yet, at least :D

No they shouldn't, but they must.

It might not be fair to Obama, it wasn't fair to Truman or Ike, but it's the only way we can expect progress.

And on another level, it's time the Democratic Party decides what they want to do with us. It's not fair to keep stringing along the gay community if they aren't going to deliver.

[yg17]

Some things are a more important then stem cell research, like stopping discrimination against a group of people.

Don

Yet you seem to have no problem with throwing people in jail with no real evidence against them , torturing them and taking away all of their rights because they come from the same country as some terrorists :rolleyes:

If that's not "discrimination against a group of people" then I don't know what is

[és:]

And on another level, it's time the Democratic Party decides what they want to do with us. It's not fair to keep stringing along the gay community if they aren't going to deliver.

I don't disagree with that. It isn't just the gay community, either. I do think he has made a solid, if unspectacular start in his first 50 days. If he continues the way he started then I then I think the country will be a lot better than it was.

Let us not forget that the country is fighting war on two fronts and in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s.

[és:]

Yet you seem to have no problem with throwing people in jail with no real evidence against them , torturing them and taking away all of their rights because they come from the same country as some terrorists :rolleyes:

If that's not "discrimination against a group of people" then I don't know what is

I'm so glad that I don't have to read his posts and only catch some of it in quotes. I'd be completely grey by now.

[Nadav]

Some things are a more important then stem cell research, like stopping discrimination against a group of people.

Don

If my memory is correct, you used to bash gays all the time...

[és:]

If my memory is correct, you used to bash gays all the time...

Yeah, he came out a while back.

[yg17]

I'm so glad that I don't have to read his posts and only catch some of it in quotes. I'd be completely grey by now.


I've tried using the ignore list before, but it's like a bad car crash on the side of the road, you know you shouldn't look, but you just have to.

[és:]

I've tried using the ignore list before, but it's like a bad car crash on the side of the road, you know you shouldn't look, but you just have to.



:D

[leekohler]

If my memory is correct, you used to bash gays all the time...

As es said, he came out a few months ago. It's very typical for gay people in the closet to bash gays. We're afraid of coming out and in denial. It's ugly and self-destructive, but we've all been there. It's not fun. We understand and all is forgiven.

I've tried using the ignore list before, but it's like a bad car crash on the side of the road, you know you shouldn't look, but you just have to.

Ok, look- he's really young yet. Give him a chance to experience life a little more.

[Dmac77]

Yet you seem to have no problem with throwing people in jail with no real evidence against them , torturing them and taking away all of their rights because they come from the same country as some terrorists :rolleyes:

If that's not "discrimination against a group of people" then I don't know what is

I never said anything that singled out a specific group. I just said that if someone (race, religion, etc doesn't matter) is suspected of terrorist activities, then the government has the right to torture them for information. I never singled out a specific group of people.

Lets stay on topic, this thread is about don't ask don't tell after all, not interrogating terrorists.

Don

[CalBoy]

I don't disagree with that. It isn't just the gay community, either. I do think he has made a solid, if unspectacular start in his first 50 days. If he continues the way he started then I then I think the country will be a lot better than it was.

No question that he's been remarkable in his first 50 days. I will give him all the credit in the world for that, and his continuing performance.

It just irks me that on this issue, he's taking his time, when the community as a whole feels that so much time has already been lost.

Let us not forget that the country is fighting war on two fronts and in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s.

Which I think is a great moment for social progress.

Nothing breaks down bigotry like shared hardship.

[CalBoy]

Lets stay on topic, this thread is about don't ask don't tell after all, not interrogating terrorists.

Yes, let's stay on topic.

The last on-topic post you made about DADT, you claimed that Obama was doing this to avoid losing independent votes, and then I rebuked you with 2008 poll figures that showed the countervailing public attitude.

Your move.

[Nadav]

As es said, he came out a few months ago. It's very typical for gay people in the closet to bash gays. We're afraid of coming out and in denial. It's ugly and self-destructive, but we've all been there. It's not fun. We understand and all is forgiven.



Ok, look- he's really young yet. Give him a chance to experience life a little more.

I had no idea that he came out, so I was a little shocked to see him defending homosexuals. I never realized that people in the closet did that, but I can somewhat understand why. I think this has just helped me find out if someone I know is gay or not. Me and my friends have always suspected that he was gay, never asked, but whenever a topic about homosexuals comes up, he is very quick to insult the gay community.

[Dmac77]

Yes, let's stay on topic.

The last on-topic post you made about DADT, you claimed that Obama was doing this to avoid losing independent votes, and then I rebuked you with 2008 poll figures that showed the countervailing public attitude.

Your move.

He'd still lose some swing voters. Including the Republicans who did vote for him in '08. If the Republicans have a promising candidate in 2012, he'll need every vote he can get (assuming that the economy continues to decline). There are still quite a few Americans who think that gays are the work of the devil, and all of that crap. Some of those people did vote for Obama. I just think that if he does over turn DADT, he'll lose some votes in 2012. I don't think he wants to take that risk. He's a politician after all, he'll do what will help him get reelected.

Don

[yg17]

I never said anything that singled out a specific group. I just said that if someone (race, religion, etc doesn't matter) is suspected of terrorist activities, then the government has the right to torture them for information. I never singled out a specific group of people.

Lets stay on topic, this thread is about don't ask don't tell after all, not interrogating terrorists.

Don

Under the Bush regime, having brown skin and a funny name was enough to make you a terror suspect.

[leekohler]

I had no idea that he came out, so I was a little shocked to see him defending homosexuals. I never realized that people in the closet did that, but I can somewhat understand why. I think this has just helped me find out if someone I know is gay or not. Me and my friends have always suspected that he was gay, never asked, but whenever a topic about homosexuals comes up, he is very quick to insult the gay community.

Yep- you most likely have yourself a gay friend. Be careful though with that though. It's very scary for the person dealing with it. If you are ever alone with him, the subject comes up and he makes negative comments, say this, "If I were gay, would you say the same things about me?" He most likely will say no, but let him know that if he were gay you would accept him. It's very important to give people in the closet some space, but also let them know in subtle ways that you would be OK with it.

[Dmac77]

Under the Bush regime, having brown skin and a funny name was enough to make you a terror suspect.

Did I specify any race or religion in my post in that thread? No I didn't. Just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean that I'm a racist bigot, who thinks that all arabs or muslims are terrorists.

Can we please stay on DADT here?

Don

[CalBoy]

He'd still lose some swing voters. Including the Republicans who did vote for him in '08.

Republicans who voted for Obama in 2008 were overwhelming moderate (and they were especially more moderate on social issues). It's very unlikely that the bulk of such voters are happy with DADT.

There are still quite a few Americans who think that gays are the work of the devil, and all of that crap.

Yes, and very few of them voted for Obama (likely because half of them thought he is a muslim :rolleyes:).

That wasn't, and will never be, his base of votes.

Some of those people did vote for Obama. I just think that if he does over turn DADT, he'll lose some votes in 2012. I don't think he wants to take that risk. He's a politician after all, he'll do what will help him get reelected.


DADT is an admitted failure on both sides of the aisle. This is one issue Obama can touch relatively safely.

Now civil unions/marriage, there's your can of worms.

[leekohler]

He'd still lose some swing voters. Including the Republicans who did vote for him in '08. If the Republicans have a promising candidate in 2012, he'll need every vote he can get (assuming that the economy continues to decline). There are still quite a few Americans who think that gays are the work of the devil, and all of that crap. Some of those people did vote for Obama. I just think that if he does over turn DADT, he'll lose some votes in 2012. I don't think he wants to take that risk. He's a politician after all, he'll do what will help him get reelected.

Don

And as Calboy pointed out, it's highly unlikely Obama would lose the election over DADT.

[Macky-Mac]

What I want to know is why Obama hasn't signed an executive order ending the policy outright.

He is the commander-in-chief and has full power to do so.

What is "consulting" with Gates going to accomplish? :confused:

He's waiting for political cover.

From what I've read, the idea is to get a committee of military and defense leaders to investigate and then issue a report telling Obama the military feels it's time to change the policy.

[Dmac77]

Yep- you most likely have yourself a gay friend. Be careful though with that though. It's very scary for the person dealing with it. If you are ever alone with him, the subject comes up and he makes negative comments, say this, "If I were gay, would you say the same things about me?" He most likely will say no, but let him know that if he were gay you would accept him. It's very important to give people in the closet some space, but also let them know in subtle ways that you would be OK with it.

I agree with Lee here. When your friends bring up homosexuality, it can be terrifying. I always felt like I was going to have a coronary when my friends would bring up homosexuality. Don't force him out of the closet, just let him now that if he is gay, you'll be there to support him, and that you wouldn't judge him because of his homosexuality.

Don

[Dmac77]

Republicans who voted for Obama in 2008 were overwhelming moderate (and they were especially more moderate on social issues). It's very unlikely that the bulk of such voters are happy with DADT.


Yes, and very few of them voted for Obama (likely because half of them thought he is a muslim :rolleyes:).

That wasn't, and will never be, his base of votes.


DADT is an admitted failure on both sides of the aisle. This is one issue Obama can touch relatively safely.

Now civil unions/marriage, there's your can of worms.

Remember that the majority of people are complete and total idiots. If he does away with DADT, people are going to think that he wants to legalize gay marriage. Which around 50% of the population is against. People are idiots, you have to keep that in mind when thinking about issues like this.

Don

[CalBoy]

Remember that the majority of people are complete and total idiots. If he does away with DADT, people are going to think that he wants to legalize gay marriage. Which around 50% of the population is against. People are idiots, you have to keep that in mind when thinking about issues like this.

I'm about to graduate with a BA in political science; I'm fully aware of how moronic "the people" are.

This is one issue that they can handle and differentiate from gay marriage.

As others have pointed out, his delay is more likely due to a desire to have a harmonious transition and prevent "accidents."

[Dmac77]

I'm about to graduate with a BA in political science; I'm fully aware of how moronic "the people" are.

This is one issue that they can handle and differentiate from gay marriage.

As others have pointed out, his delay is more likely due to a desire to have a harmonious transition and prevent "accidents."

I'll give up. But IMO he's going to try to dodge the issue.

Don

[CalBoy]

I'll give up. But IMO he's going to try to dodge the issue.

If he was going to dodge the issue, then he wouldn't have been in talks with Gates.

[Dmac77]

If he was going to dodge the issue, then he wouldn't have been in talks with Gates.

He needs to keep a good image.

Don

[CalBoy]

He needs to keep a good image.

If that's the case, why bother with so many executive orders and legislation?

That goes way beyond image requirements.

[Dmac77]

If that's the case, why bother with so many executive orders and legislation?

That goes way beyond image requirements.

Has he made an executive order regarding gay rights? No he hasn't.

Don

[CalBoy]

Has he made an executive order regarding gay rights? No he hasn't.

No, concerning other issues. He's certainly going above and beyond to keep a good image in other areas, what's your basis for saying this issue isn't the same?

[Dmac77]

No, concerning other issues. He's certainly going above and beyond to keep a good image in other areas, what's your basis for saying this issue isn't the same?

Stem cell research doesn't have to do with discrimination against a group of people. DADT has to do with the rights of a large group of people being violated.

Don

[CalBoy]

Stem cell research doesn't have to do with discrimination against a group of people. DADT has to do with the rights of a large group of people being violated.

You're missing the point.

If all Obama cares about is image, why act in any policy area?

The fact that he has acted in several critical areas pokes holes in that argument. To put the cherry on top, he's met with Gates and Mullen to discuss how to proceed.

[marbles]

Surely this will lead to the downfall of the American military as we know it as gays seduce commanding officers and persuade them to make love not war.


If only.

The Army should be disbanded and then we could spend the money on sugar lumps...or flowers...or hospitals.....or education...or cheese or...

[.Andy]

If only.

The Army should be disbanded and then we could spend the money on sugar lumps...or flowers...or hospitals.....or education...or cheese or...
Couldn't agree with you more marbles. Except for perhaps the sugar lumps :);).

[és:]

If only.

The Army should be disbanded and then we could spend the money on sugar lumps...or flowers...or hospitals.....or education...or cheese or...

I'm in favor of having a military but only if they do what they are supposed to do and nothing more. Defend our shores.

If all military did what they were supposed to do we'd have very little conflict.

[emt1]

Do any of you realize just how homophobic most soldiers are?

[és:]

Do any of you realize just how homophobic most soldiers are?

There used to be a lot of racism, too. No doubt there is still some. I'm not sure of your point(so don't take this as an attack on what you've said), but is this an argument to keep other races other than white out of the army?

We can't think of this situation like that.

[emt1]

There used to be a lot of racism, too. No doubt there is still some. I'm not sure of your point(so don't take this as an attack on what you've said), but is this an argument to keep other races other than white out of the army?

We can't think of this situation like that.

I think that given the number of homophobic soldiers, allowing openly gay people to serve would probably be a disaster.

It's sad. It's a shame. It's embarrassing. But I really think that's the truth.

[és:]

I think that given the number of homophobic soldiers, allowing openly gay people to serve would probably be a disaster.

It's sad. It's a shame. It's embarrassing. But I really think that's the truth.

Well, I was saying that the same was true of racist soldiers, in more than one country. That argument doesn't really wash with me, I have to say.

Each to his own, I guess.

[MacNut]

What was the reason given for don't ask don't tell to be implemented in the first place. Were there hate crimes against gay soldiers?

[leekohler]

I think that given the number of homophobic soldiers, allowing openly gay people to serve would probably be a disaster.

It's sad. It's a shame. It's embarrassing. But I really think that's the truth.

So punish the victims of hatred for other people's stupidity? If I hear this one more time in this thread, I'm gonna puke.

[emt1]

So punish the victims of hatred for other people's stupidity? If I hear this one more time in this thread, I'm gonna puke.

Fine. Let them join. Don't complain when they are assaulted or killed or our military starts to fall apart. I want equal rights just as much as the next guy (I'm bi) but really... this is our military we are talking about.

[leekohler]

Fine. Let them join. Don't complain when they are assaulted or killed or our military starts to fall apart. I want equal rights just as much as the next guy (I'm bi) but really... this is our military we are talking about.

The same crappy excuse was used to keep blacks out of the military. Has the military fallen apart? And gee- no other country's military has fallen apart because of homosexuals.

[emt1]

The same crappy excuse was used to keep blacks out of the military. Has the military fallen apart?

Nope. My opinion is different than yours, but that doesn't mean you have to use insulting rhetorical questions.

[leekohler]

Nope. My opinion is different than yours, but that doesn't mean you have to use insulting rhetorical questions.

Start looking at the facts. Look at all the other countries where it's allowed. Are their militaries gone? No. So what are you saying? That American soldiers are not as intelligent as the rest of the world's soldiers?

Opinions are fine. But they mean nothing if they can't be backed by evidence.

[emt1]

Start looking at the facts. Look at all the other countries where it's allowed. Are their militaries gone? No. So what are you saying? That American soldiers are not as intelligent as the rest of the world's soldiers?

Well...

[leekohler]

Well...

Wow- OK then.

[és:]

emt1, do you have anything other than guesstimation to give credibility to your claim that the military will 'start to fall apart' because there are some openly homosexual men within the ranks.

[emt1]

emt1, do you have anything other than guesstimation to give credibility to your claim that the military will 'start to fall apart' because there are some openly homosexual men within the ranks.

Nope. I never tried to pass off my opinion as being supported by facts.

[és:]

Nope. I never tried to pass off my opinion as being supported by facts.

Cool, no worries. I don't have a problem with anybody thinking anything they like. It is when they try to pass it off as credible that I have a problem, you've made clear that it is just an opinion and you're welcome to that. Thanks.