Lieberman Introduces DADT Repeal Bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Mar 4, 2010.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/03/Lieberman_Introduces_DADT_Repeal_Bill/

    Everyone gets at least one thing right, this would be Lieberman's. Thank you.
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    Let's see how this goes. I'm sure someone will try and make out that openly-gay servicemen oppresses their religious freedoms along the way...
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Of course. But so what? I'm tired of listening to those people. I think this will pass fairly easily.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Lieberman?????

    Well I'll be damned. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Fingers crossed.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    Or, considering the subject... swords crossed. :eek:

    Sorry, I couldnt' resist. :)
     
  7. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #7
    Let's all vote Yea and move on. It's so stupid that this is still an issue. Maybe it's time to vote the old timers out.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8

    Maybe?
     
  9. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #9
    Watching the Rangel events I was amazed at how old some of the people were who were in line for his job.

    all they are missing are the wigs
     
  10. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #10
    The problem is that this DADT issue is not a civilian issue but instead one for the military alone to address; therefore for civilian members of Congress/Senate to vote on something that imposes potential restraints upon the military may affect mission readiness. Certainly we can agree that the civilian and military atmosphere is quite different and if top generals have concerns about DADT repeal we should not be hasty in changing current policy.

    Top Marine opposes possible repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell'
    By Roxana Tiron - 02/25/10 01:50 PM ET
    The Hill
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83695-top-marine-opposes-ending-dont-ask-dont-tell-law
    The commandant of the Marine Corps told senators Thursday that he opposes lifting the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. Gen. James Conway’s position on the repeal of the controversial law known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has not been a close-held secret, but on Thursday he publicly offered his personal opinion to the Senate Armed Services Committee — becoming the most senior military officer to openly express his opposition to the change of the Clinton-era law. “My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is,” Conway said. “At this point I think that the current policy works.”
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #11
    The only thing imposing restraints upon the military is this dicriminatory law that prevents gay people from serving. Repealing DADT will allow many more qualified people to serve and will only improve mission readiness.

    The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is for repealing it. :rolleyes:
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    POTUS = Commander in Chief. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if the Commander in Chief ordered his subordinates to do something, and they chose to ignore the order.

    POTUS is CIC, but he can't address this issue?

    Congress passed laws related to DADT, but can't address them now?

    Seriously? ITN, you're not 5. You must have a deeper understanding of what's going on than that.
     
  13. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Anyone who's been paying attention should know that. ITN simply doesn't like gay people. That's been quite clear for a while now.
     
  14. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #14
    If the Commander-in-Chief and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are both in favour of repealing DADT the rest of your post is irrelevant. You've heard of the chain of command I take it? Gen. James Conway may well be entitled to his opinion, but he is going to have to do what he's told by his superiors. He's a military man, so I'm pretty sure he'll be able to do that without too much trouble.
     
  15. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    I'm going to say this:

    Anyone who wants to see this policy stay is obviously someone who wants to see every discriminatory law against gays stay in place as well. In brief, those people simply don't like gay people.
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    ^^ I agree Lee. Permitting gay servicemen and women to openly serve has not undermined discipline in any other country's armed forces. Therefore there is no other basis for objection to this repeal other than "but I don't like them damn gays". That may have well cut it 50 years ago, but not in the 21st century. People who don't like us just for existing are going to have to just learn to get over whatever hangups they have. We're not going anywhere, least of all back into the shadows.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Doesn't that contradict the teachings of Jesus?
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    I agree with ending DADT, but I could see the military being concerned about unit cohesiveness.

    Get a bunch of 18 year old kids together in close quarters with weapons, and the inclusion of gays might cause problems. At least for a while until society as a whole becomes more tolerant.

    Unfortunately, many young people aren't as tolerant as they will end up being as they get older and have more experiences. I was a lot less open minded when I was younger.

    (edit) I personally think this "fear" is way overstated, but I could see a bunch of 60+ year old military guys being concerned in a reasonable way, not just that they didn't like gays.

    They could have legitimate concerns, even if unfounded.
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    I thought the point of basic training was to break down the various differences in personality amongst recruits and get them thinking as part of a cohesive machine. Sorry to use this example again, but change the word gays for blacks in your post and you have another reason for possible breakdown of cohesiveness, yet the US armed forces cope admirably with that. Why would this be any different?
     
  20. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    Thank you for that. That's exactly what it is.
     
  21. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    I absolutely agree, but I think there were military people who had legitimate concerns about how a bunch of white 18 year old kids would get along with black recruits. Those concerns may not have been their prejudice against blacks, but a fear of how the existing soldiers would react to being in close contact with the black soldiers.

    It turned out to be unfounded, just like all the fears about gays in the military will turn out to be unfounded.

    But, that doesn't mean every person against ending DADT is a homophobe.

    I'm not defending the idea, just pointing out that you are using too broad a brush-stroke in painting these people.
     
  22. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #22
    Yes, just like most things on the Christian and Republican agendas.
     
  23. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I'm sorry, but that's an excuse people use to continue discriminatory practices. It's BS and even they know it.
     
  24. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Lee, most of the time I absolutely agree with you, but in this case, I have to disagree. I think a rational person would acknowlege that prejudices exist, and at least look to see what problems may arise. Then, that same rational person would put into motion a plan to reverse the discrimination and end the discriminatory practices.

    If you would have stuck one black soldier in the middle of each white unit with no plans in place, there may have been violence or problems.

    At least address the concerns and make certain you aren't setting this up for failure. The last thing you want is to create a situation where something bad happens and justifies the people who want to keep DADT.

    In any event, I agree with ending DADT, and I agree that there are people looking for an excuse to avoid ending it, but at the same time, I think people need to be smart in how it is phased out. Just in case.
     
  25. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #25
    If we kept discriminating against the minority because the majority might not like it and react, then we never would've passed womens' suffrage, the civil rights act, etc. We shouldn't continue discriminating against gays because a few homophobic bigots won't like it.
     

Share This Page