Daily Kos

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in its last throes?

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:50:15 AM PDT

USAToday reports:

Democrats in Congress hope to ignite a drive to reverse the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy Wednesday with the first hearing on the subject since 1993, when President Clinton said gays could serve in uniform if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation.

Without this hearing, said former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, "you will never repeal the law. It's a great idea." He is among more than 50 retired generals and admirals who have said it is time to rethink the policy.

Solid thinking by General Shalikashvili. That seems to me to be exactly right. That is, that Democratic Members of Congress need to be thinking ahead now about exactly how they propose to manage drinking from the firehose of needed reforms and repairs coming after Liberation Day in January of next year.

But it's not just the Bush-bots who are to blame for the fact that there hasn't even been a hearing on the subject for 15 years:

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee tried to have a hearing on the policy in April 2007, but opposition from conservatives in their party sank the idea.

More and better, people. More and better.

The conditions are right for revisiting this issue:

[T]he volunteer armed forces struggle to retain troops to fight two wars. Changing attitudes are seen in polls such as one by The Washington Post, published Saturday, showing that 75% favor allowing gays to serve openly, up from 44% in 1993.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, has said that if elected, he would work to repeal the bar on open service — and the "don't ask" compromise designed to work around it. His Republican rival, John McCain, wants no change.

"At a time when the military is relaxing every possible standard to attract new recruits, and at the same time is losing mission-critical specialists such as Arabic linguists, medical professionals and others, one would hope and expect that Defense Department leaders would be first in line to call on Congress to repeal the law," says Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

They're not, of course. Because active duty military personnel generally feel restrained from challenging policy.

But the numbers tell the hidden part of the story:

The military has booted 12,500 servicemembers under "don't ask, don't tell." Annual discharges peaked at 1,273 in 2001. Discharges have declined sharply since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Pentagon discharged 627 servicemembers last year.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is just one of many legislative fixes needed, of course. Kudos to Military Personnel Subcommittee chair Susan Davis (D-CA) for holding the hearing, and to Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who's been beaten up plenty around these parts before, for sponsoring the bill designed to enact the repeal.

Hopefully an early success -- meaning that it comes shortly after the current maniac is finally purged from the White House -- will embolden Democrats in the 111th Congress to move quickly on repeals promised more recently, such as that of the Military Commissions Act and the recent FISA disaster.

  • ::

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Ellen Tauscher, Susan Davis (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 125 comments

  •  Gotta love the Gramps of Wrath! (9+ / 0-)

    He never fails to take up the wrong end of an issue.

    "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

    by Melody Townsel on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:52:03 AM PDT

  •  Way, WAY (14+ / 0-)

    past time for this.

    Aaron Sorkin was taking this subject on in The West Wing nine years ago. Reality shouldn't be so damn cowardly.

  •  As much as I hate the policy (17+ / 0-)

    I find it absolutely abhorrent that the reason we dispense with it is so we can send more people to die in useless conflicts...

  •  Timing? (10+ / 0-)

    My only concern is that the timing of this will awaken the Evangelicals, who don't have much excitement for McSame and get them out to the polls. We either need to do right now, or wait until after election season.

    I know you can't always wait for politics to do the right thing, but I feel there's so much at stake with this election.

  •  USA Today is wrong! DADT was Forced on Clinton (9+ / 0-)

    by homosexist bigots like Sam Nunn!

    Clinton was for total repeal of discrimination
    agains Gays and Lesbians, but Nunn's theatrical
    demagoguery distorted "public opinion" and forced
    the so-called compromise of "don't ask don't tell"!

    •  It is convenient (7+ / 0-)

      to forget this little detail, isn't it?  I was living in DC during the '92 GE and much of Bubba's first term.  I remember exactly what went on, what the mood was, and what was being said about the issue.  Clinton was rather shamelessly pandering to get the gay vote out, and GLBT leadership forced this issue frankly, which I thought was a huge mistake (I was also in the military at the time).  Clinton was forced to back down on something that never should have come up to begin with (I was much more in favor of employment non-discrimination legislation) because the issue was derailing his domestic policy agenda at every turn...

      If anything can be blamed on Bubba, it was choosing the wrong GLBT issue to push at the wrong time...

      No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

      by jarhead5536 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:22:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you! (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ebohlman, jarhead5536

        It was pandering, but also part of Clinton's stubborn mindset that he was going to pick a fight with the military, and this was a twofer on that: being seen as a gay "champion". Elizabeth Drew has written that the gay rights forces preferred a "fight" over ENDA, which affected far more people, but he refused to be swayed from the military thing. After that, of course they had to publicly support him.

    •  Thank you! You're 100% right and... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ExStr8

      ...to those commenters above calling Clinton's move on gays in the military "pandering": I called it "inspiring", for it was.  And proof of that is the 200,000 -- 1,000,000 (depending on who's estimating) of us who showed up on the Mall that Summer in the campaign for human rights. It was a great day, BTW, with unforgettable moments involving Cybil Sheppard, RuPaul, Lea DeLorea (sp?), and others.

  •  perhaps it needs to be presented to the public (5+ / 0-)

    this way

    who would you prefer to see wear our uniforms and fight our wars ....

    gang members who didnt get HS diplomas and have violent records that have been whitewashed in order to get past the restrictions for who can serve and who choose military service rather then go to jail...

    or

    Smart, qualified people who have a deep desire to serve our nation in uniform and are highly qualified to fill the positions we need in our military and who, just happen to be GAY ??

    OIL UBER ALLES says "MORE WARS" McCain

    by KnotIookin on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:57:06 AM PDT

    •  citizen or not (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      CityLightsLover

      Like marriage, serving in the military is a right and responsibility that citizens take seriously and to deny gays that part of citizenship is to deny their citizenship. It is a Constitutional question easily answered.

      Everybody eats, nobody hits.

      by upperleftedge on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:14:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  let's not Willie Horton (0+ / 0-)

      the military

      just sayin'...

      Beware all ventures which require new clothes, and not a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

      by Shocko from Seattle on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:22:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd rather have both. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      nanobubble

      If the military can instill pride and discipline in a former ne'er do well, I'm for it.  I'd rather see a gangbanger trade his gang in for his platoon.

      And DADT is only still there to protect the sensitive sensibilities of the Christofascists in the military.  War is hell, and we want to protect Christofascists' delicate sensibilities - especially when we need Arabic linguists?

      9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

      by varro on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't want Obama to stub his toe (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Iowan, CParis, NogodsnomastersMary

    The way that Clinton did.

    I completely support ending discrimination against gays in the military, but I don't want Obama to press for this in his first 100 days unless it is a slam dunk, supported by key active military brass and key members of congress.  The time may indeed be right, but if it takes political capital, I'm willing to wait until 2010, when Obama should have built more.

    Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

    by Actuary4Change on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:01:30 AM PDT

    •  Why Is That? (7+ / 0-)

      You really think that who a person Loves has anything to do with whether or not they could be a good soldier?  

      Democrats have been far too weak on opposing Sexism/Homophobia, government-discrimination, and outright bigotry and hatred.  

      Obama and all Democrats should shout it from the hilltops - ENOUGH!

      •  how does this (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ExStr8, esquimaux, DC Scott, leonard145b

        dovetail into the recent stories of sexual abuse coming from our current theatres of war? what appears to be increased danger female service members face from their brethren?

        (I note, in passing, that this seems to be the first war fought in modern times in a place where the sex trade is not readily available, and drawn no conclusions from any of this).

        Beware all ventures which require new clothes, and not a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

        by Shocko from Seattle on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:24:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree on the principle and maybe the timing (0+ / 0-)

        Please be more careful before turning flames on.

        You really think that who a person Loves has anything to do with whether or not they could be a good soldier?  

        If you go back and re-read my comment, this clearly should not be directed at me.

        All I am saying is that I'm not going to press Obama to make this one of his high priority issues immediately upon taking office, if he, in his judgement thinks that it is the wrong time politically.

        I basically agree with your comment that Democrats have been too weak, but there is a difference between weakness and tactics.  I'd be very disapointed in Obama if we didn't get this in his first term.

        Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

        by Actuary4Change on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:35:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        leonard145b

        Who a person makes loves to and in what manner they make love should be of no concern to the military. With President Obama as commander in chief it will be very important that our military welcome members of the LGBTQ community in its ranks as we shift the priority from illegal wars to fighting global climate change and educating other countries on fundamental people powered LGBTQ rights.

        People power = LGBTQ marital rights = OBAMA '08!

        by kevinspa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is wonderful if the hearing (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, juslikagrzly, ExStr8, iRobert

    comes into fruition and actually leads to a repeal.  

    Considering the recent Wash Post poll, it seems quite timely for the Dems to bring the topic up.  

  •  Even Jim Webb says we should review it. (3+ / 0-)

    Said so in an interview with Charlie Rose this week.

  •  I find this odd. (7+ / 0-)

    It is a stupid, stupid policy and it should be repealed, but I have to say that taking this issue on - one created by the last Democratic President no less - in the midst of a presidential race - seems like very strange political strategy - and I am saying this in the context of the countless defenses made for passing the FISA bill because they were afraid of the political consequences of not doing it.  

    To be absolutely clear, I am not saying they shouldn't do it, but it definitely doesn't make any sense to me and I don't know how in the hell they think they are going to pass the repeal given our slim majority numbers and our internal party resistence.  Why aren't they putting this in the first 100 hours of the next term when presumably we will have a better majority and a President who is more likely to sign it?  

    I am guessing that this will be another Lucy with the football scenario where Republicans will tell the leadership they'll vote for it and then switch positions at the last minute and try to use it against us in the election.  

  •  It's about time they repeal this (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, Jay C, ExStr8, ryan81

    travesty of a policy.

    Liberation Day - January 20, 2009

    That is classic and I'm stealing it.  We need bumperstickers.

    Eyes on the Prize - JedReport

    by juslikagrzly on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:07:16 AM PDT

  •  Its about time. (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, varro, AUBoy2007, ExStr8, leonard145b

    I had a conversation with a couple friends in college. Both very conservative, Christian, ignorant about this. One of them served in the military. He said that gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military because you take showers together and that he would fell uncomfortable taking a shower if their were gay people in the military. Then he asked me if I would feel uncomfortable with it. I said No. then they both said that I was a better person than them, and I couldn't disagree with them.

    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Douglas Adams

    by ryan81 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:09:11 AM PDT

    •  It Also Means They Think They Might Get An (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      varro, ExStr8, Shocko from Seattle

      erection if they knew someone in the shower were Gay.  I mean, WTF - we've built a policy around men who are afraid of other men in the shower?  Even if a Gay man did approach them "In The Shower," if you're Straight, how would you be affected?  Time to put that nutty, (pardon the pun), shower argument to rest!

    •  Odd logic (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      varro, ExStr8, CityLightsLover

      I've never been able to figure that argument out. If you don't want a gay guy next to you staring at you while you're naked, wouldn't you rather know who was gay so you could wait 'til he was done before you took your shower? Under Don't Ask/Don't Tell, you think the guy next to you is straight, but...

      •  This "Fact" is Also a Stereotype (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Grendel, ExStr8

        that all gay men are "out to get" ALL men. Hell, there's plenty of guys out there that I, as a heterosexual female, wouldn't touch with a 10 - foot pole and for all the money in the world!

        "I am the one who speaks for the spirit of freedom & decency in you." Hunter S. Thompson

        by CityLightsLover on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:40:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it's a guy thing (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          CityLightsLover

          Some guys seem to think that everyone wants what they got, no matter how unattractive (physically or emotionally) they may be.  In fact, I'd suggest that there is an inverse relationship between a guy's looks and his fear of being "wanted" to gay men, i.e., the better looking the guy, the more likely he couldn't care less; by contrast, the less attractive, the more likely they'll be afraid someone is lusting after them.  

          Kind of like the guys most uptight about gays are probably the ones least secure in their own masculinity.

          My thinking is that it's all based on fear; the more a guy is afraid that no one wants him, he proclaims as loudly as possible that everyone wants him, as if that would make it true.  Just my hunch.

    •  Exactly the same thing was said about blacks (0+ / 0-)

      Even down to the shower arguement.

      It would bother them, if at all, the first couple of showers.  They would then get used to it.

      Basic training is specifically designed to take a group of strangers who may have many reasons to be uncomfortable with each other and turn them into a unit.  It's brainwashing of a sort, its necessary for an effective army, and it works.

      If the military brass decided to enforce anti-discrimination and it was drilled into the culture of the military, 99% of problems would go away quickly.

      The biggest problem right now is that much military brass, especially in the Air Force, is evangelical.

      Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

      by Actuary4Change on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  General Shalikashvili is our guy. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, DC Scott

    He's the military Diogenes who honestly informed Congress that it would require "several hundred thousand" troops to competently occupy Iraq. For his honesty he was of course promptly cashiered by the despicable and incompetent Donald Rumsfeld.

  •  Bush the Great Liberal (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    CityLightsLover

    So Democrats will repeal military homophobia this year, a watershed like when Truman repealed military racism and set the stage for the Civil Rights Revolution in America generally. Republicans will take credit for it, as Bush is president.

    Just like Republicans will take credit for the minimum wage increase. And for ending the Iraq War, since (post escalation surge) large troop withdrawals will have started under Bush. And for getting the US off oil, since the first large alternative energy systems will have started this year. And the new GI Bill for educating veterans, the biggest since the end of WWII.

    In the history books, all the huge changes to soem of America's worst habits will all have started under Bush. Sure, today it looks like Democrats are doing it all despite Bush. But that's not how American history works. Nobody remembers the Congress and its partisan makeup when looking back at a historical era's changes.

    That's why Republicans won the Cold War: because Ronald Reagan was president.

    Democrats (no thanks to the Republicans in their party) are going to once again give the propaganda victory to Republicans. Sure, they could put the homophobia to the sword six months from now, in the first month after Obama is inaugurated. Just like they're stalling on any number of other urgent policy changes, like impeaching Bush. But they won't. And so the original, foundational policies will also have to be made with Bush's influence, and the amplified influence of his Republican Congressional minority.

    Just like Bush always takes credit for anything popular that passes despite him, he will take credit for all this. He's already taken credit for the GI Bill, given credit to WcCain for it, despite both of them fighting to kill it. Bush will go down in history as the Great Liberal, the Compassionate Conservative. At least, that's how the history will look for the next few elections, as Republicans try to resurrect their brand while the electorate clamors for liberal policies.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:10:44 AM PDT

    •  It probably won't happen until after (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      CityLightsLover

      the election.

      You really think there going to vote on this before an election?

      This is just to get the wheels moving, get the idea out there, and show they're serious about it.

      I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

      by AUBoy2007 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:13:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If It Improves The USA Military Capabilities, (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo, CityLightsLover

        they should vote on it now.  They voted on FISA, before the election.  How did that help anything?  

        They vote on anything they deem a priority.  Ask the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader!

        •  They voted on FISA before the election (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          CParis, angrytoyrobot, leonard145b

          because they were scared of the electoral consequences (for no reason, I might add).

          The same reason is why they won't vote on this before the election.

          I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

          by AUBoy2007 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:30:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is The Quaking Getting Louder, (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            AUBoy2007, DocGonzo, CityLightsLover

            or are we just listening more closely?  How long before the People realize they're all just too scared to stand up against the Imperial and Corrupt Right-Wing and lead?

            •  The Internet has got to be controlled (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              DocGonzo, leonard145b

              so that all of you dam-med "little people" can bloody well only hear what we WANT YOU TO HEAR.

              Frankly, we, the Elite, are sick and tired of you little shiites having your own opinions, and that's going to stop.

              You are going to learn, again, to trust us.  You are going to use all the oil we give you, and you are going to like it.  You are going to eat our processed foods, run your houses on our coal-fired electricity, vote for who we choose, when we choose, and most of all, you are going to KNOW YOUR PLACE.

              If you don't learn to live the way we want you to live again, with our morality (and that means these dam-med gays go to prison or they go back into the closets and stay there), our values, our churches.  If you don't, you will be punished.

              Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

              by angrytoyrobot on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  They Voted for the Bribes (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            leonard145b

            They voted on FISA because their bribes were raised to vote for it.

            I guess that could mean that they won't vote to stop Don't Ask/Tell, unless gay people raise their own bribes to Congress, which I haven't heard is in the works.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:59:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Yep, me too! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    leonard145b

    Liberation Day - January 20, 2009

    That is classic and I'm stealing it.  We need bumperstickers.

  •  These were the smart ones. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, The Jester

    The military has booted 12,500 servicemembers under "don't ask, don't tell." Annual discharges peaked at 1,273 in 2001.

    What do you want to bet a lot of these would still be serving if President Numbnuts hadn't become their Commander In Chief?  It kind of makes it easier to come 'out,' don'tchathink?

    Half-baked ideas for sale - cheap!

    by Steaming Pile on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:11:40 AM PDT

  •  Awesome (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    AUBoy2007, Krush, leonard145b, FeDhu

    Now gay people get the privilege of being shipped off to some desert shithole and getting shot. Woohoo, I can't wait.

  •  The other sensless military rule (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, DC Scott, leonard145b, The Jester

    I think it is time to re-visit and change the rules regarding women on the front lines as well.

    If women can volunteer and meet job requirements, why can't they serve in any position in all branches of the military?

    Women are no longer the weaker sex and are more than capable of any task regardless of physical or mental requirements.

    •  To paraphrase Barry Goldwater . . . (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey, ExStr8, CityLightsLover

      you don't have to be straight to shoot straight.  HERE.  Or a man, either.  

      "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

      by DC Scott on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      And while we are at it.  We need to review the showers/sleeping/dressing and restroom seperation aswell.  A soldier is a soldier.

      If we are ever going to get equal oppertunity.  Then there are no male soldiers, or female soldiers.  There are only soldiers. Only Sailors, and Marines, and Airman.  

      Honestly, that is the way it should be.  A unified force.  No seperation.  THAT is the only way to make it moot about sexual orientation.

      Starship Troopers is a good visual for what I am meaning.

      Thats my story and Im stickin to it.  Just my opinion folks.

      McCain's Political Platform: a noun, a verb, and P.O.W.

      by Cutty Shark on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:48:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, all it takes is a TRIGGER FINGER... (0+ / 0-)

      ... with modern weapons, frankly a 10 yr old sitting on the couch at home could be blowing cities up with extreme dexterity.... so women with guns can get the job done in the modern military.

      The real issue is just how FUCKED UP things are that nearly 200 women a year get RAPED in the military by thier fellow soldiers and officers.

      If you can't obey the simple ORDER.... keep you fucking hands to yourself. How can you ever be trusted to obey orders on the battlefield?

      And my only response to "the soldiers" is, knock the shit off and do your fucking job... or GET OUT.

      Quit your fucking bitching... oh wow is me, there might be gayaz around? Or them damn womens belong in the kitchens. Etc. Just shut the fuck up and kill the enemy. Hoooah!

      •  Quality matters (0+ / 0-)

        I think most of the aberrant behavior we see today is due to the reduced enlistment standards recently implemented.  To meet quotas recruiting officers look past or hide evidence of crime or moral ineptness.  Once we reduce the current strain on our military things should improve.

        I don't share your opinion that moder weapons have changed a soldiers job requirements.  I believe instead that more young women become athletes and develop a competitive attitude.  Both are qualities associated with good soldiers.

        A weapon is as effective, no more no less, as the person using it.

  •  And don't forget this: (4+ / 0-)

    DADT (or its repeal) wouldn't be necessary if the College Republicans were volunteering to serve in the wars they claim to support.

  •  It's about time (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, leonard145b

    Of course, the family values wingnust will go apesh*t, which is all the more reason to repeal.

    Stop bitching and start a revolution!

    by Randian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:18:52 AM PDT

  •  There is no reason (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    CParis, CityLightsLover

    why this could not have waited till the second week of November. Hell, us gays are waiting till after the election to start attacking DOMA. It's not that far off.

    •  Why wait? (0+ / 0-)

      With 75% support for repealing DADT, what's the big deal? This is as good a time as any and could even play to Democratic advantage. I'm gay too, btw, but not part of some "us gays" group. I just don't see the need to keep waiting for the (mythical) perfect moment for everything gay related.

  •  a bit OT, but... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    AUBoy2007, leonard145b

    ...at what time can we get past "More and Better" and shift to "Better and Better?"

    When There is No More Room Left in Hell...CONSERVATIVES Will Walk the Earth!

    by jds1978 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:21:49 AM PDT

  •  I'm torn (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    CParis, Roberticus

    While this is obviously the right thing to do, count me among the folks concerned about the timing of this announcement. I worry about giving the Republicans an edge, a wedge this November.  As a gay man, I'm accustomed to being a political football during critical elections.  It's not fun.  You can bet that Rove will be shouting in McCain's good ear to use this as a rallying cry to muster the fundie vote.  Of course, I may be wrong and America has grown older and wiser and I hope that's the case.  But I'm a bit jaded.

    respice adspice prospice

    by Steveningen on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:21:51 AM PDT

  •  The LAST GASP of "Don't ask/don't tell" (3+ / 0-)

    Will come when it is applied only to memberhsip in the Republican Party.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:28:12 AM PDT

  •  But ... (5+ / 0-)

    Is it bad that, as a gay 27-year-old man, I have used this bit of discrimination to my advantage? Military service is not something I have ever wanted for myself. If harassed about having never served, this is an easy excuse.

    Same with blood donation and my fear of needles. ("No, I can't give, they won't take blood from a gay man!"

    And marriage. I don't want to marry, and I have a fairly good excuse not to.

    •  How 'Bout a Slight "Reverse" (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      bobdevo, angrytoyrobot

      on your thought? You're serving in the sand box on your fourth or fifth tour, you've been away from your family and are struggling, and you've just f*ckin' had enough. If you say you're gay, do you get to come home?

      "I am the one who speaks for the spirit of freedom & decency in you." Hunter S. Thompson

      by CityLightsLover on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:45:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am in the same boat with you (0+ / 0-)

      The reason that I have gotten out of giving blood is, I faint at the sight of blood especially my own. I really need a tag line..but i will do that later

    •  Some would say don't rock the boat. (0+ / 0-)

      I had a couple of friends circa 1967 who were able to avoid the draft and being cannon fodder in 'Nam by playing the gay card at the draft physical.

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:03:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have a similar response (0+ / 0-)

      When the recruiters were calling at the end of high school, I told them I was an atheist and if that didn't work, I told them I was gay. Most of them hung up after hearing the 'a-word' and the rest slammed the phone so hard it made my ears ring after hearing I was gay.

  •  I am with those who find the timing to be (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    AUBoy2007, CParis

    problematic.  I am 100% in the camp that one's sexuality should be a private matter but I am also aware that the heat generated by the subject diverted attention from other extremel;y important matters, such as universal health, in the early years of the clinton administration.  My cynicism leads me to believe that this will be used in an attempt to make Obama vulnerable to the fundamentalist vote which riddles the military, thereby adding to the perception in some quarters that he is not fit to be commander in chief.

    Sounds very much like a red herring to me and smells very fishy. Certainly makes even the idea of Sam Nunn as veep impossible, not that bothers me at all.  

    •  Bedwetting (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but this is going way overboard. Yes, I'm used to gays being used to scare people into voting Republican, but does everyone have to panic every single time something gay happens? Jeez, people, 75% say they support letting gay people server openly and STILL there are quite a few posters here twitching and shivering under their beds.

      •  I do not see any evidence of people panicking (0+ / 0-)

        I certainly am not and i have not read any comments that indicate anyone else is either. Most of the comments have been practical, realistic and pragmatic regarding the coming election.

        •  How is it pragmatic and practical (0+ / 0-)

          to ignore the fact that 75% of the people that were asked support overturning this, and yet you claim "...that this will be used in an attempt to make Obama vulnerable to the fundamentalist vote which riddles the military, thereby adding to the perception in some quarters that he is not fit to be commander in chief."

          Support for universal health care isn't even that high, yet you cite universal health care as more important and, by implication, less controversial for Obama and Democrats to support.

          •  universal health care is exactly that (0+ / 0-)

            universal. The health care system affects every single man, woman and child in this country. Gays in the military affects a substantial minority of the American populace.

            This is not about gays, it is about priorities and public support is irrelevant at this stage.  Your argument is mixing apples and oranges.  There is no contest as far as I am concerned so don't expect an argument from me because i do not agree with your basic premise.

            •  I'm not the one that brought (0+ / 0-)

              universal health care into the debate. You did. What I am saying is that there is no need to be cowering under the covers because teh gays will make us lose again. You cite priorities as if Democrats and Obama can focus on only one or maybe two things at a time. There is no reason at all, none, to not have this hearing at this time. The only reason you have is that you're scared/worried/concerned (whatever word works for you that isn't "panic") about bringing up gay rights. I don't accept that we need to run from it every time. I've seen this every single election cycle from people here at DailyKos. "OMG, not now! Not gay stuff! We're gonna lose again!" It gets old.

              •  this NOT about gays, or gay rights. (0+ / 0-)

                This is about the specific subject of the policy of the military of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  If you truly think that is more important than restoring America's economy, health care, education, foreign standing, torture, the abrogation of power to the executive branch and everything else that this horrific administration has done to America in the short space of seven and a half years then in my opinion you have your priorities a little skewed.  Under McCain and a reopublican president the matter will never come up.

                Please don't try and make this about gay rights only, it isn't. This is the kind of argument people bring up over the 'racist' debate.  And it is ALL part of the debate. and as in all elections, negotiations, certain 'wedge issues' have more traction for the opposition than others. TRhis is one of those issues. The right are already attempting to make 'pro-life' a litmus test, why offer them another one.

                The timing of now is your opinion, not now is mine.

                •  plus, I brought up universal health care (0+ / 0-)

                  in reference to how the flap over gays in the miitary diverted attention from the Clinton administration's attempt to reform the health system.

                  You related it to the Obamm campaign's health care plans, however since you did i definitely think that universal health care is infinitely more important to the nation than gays in the militaryt, Frankly, if i had my way i would abolish the military altogether, i am vehemently anti-war under any circumstances.  Balancing everybody's rights is what politics is all about.

                  I would prefer to see the two leaders of any warring faction fight it out to the death in a mano a mano Roman gladiator style.  In this particular conflict that would have meant Goetrge bush and saddam Husein at Madison Square gardens, savre a l0ot of lives and a lot of money.

                •  Strawmen (0+ / 0-)

                  "The timing of now is your opinion, not now is mine."

                  No, the timing is already done. The hearing is set to take place. Again, my point has nothing to do with timing. My point, again, is to stop concern trolling about it. This will not hurt Democrats. Quit running away from gay rights like it's radioactive. And it is gay rights. How you can say it's not is beyond me.

                  Another strawman-

                  "If you truly think that is more important than restoring America's economy, health care, education, foreign standing, torture, the abrogation of power to the executive branch and everything else that this horrific administration has done to America in the short space of seven and a half years then in my opinion you have your priorities a little skewed."

                  Please point to where I said this is more important. AGAIN, my point is that you are advocating running away from the issue, not confronting it, until some magical time when you and other Democrats are comfortable with the circumstances. Such comfortable circumstances never arise in the history of civil rights.

                  Some Martin Luther King quotes that seem appropriate to me-

                  "Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom."

                  "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

                  "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

                  And most appropriately of all-

                  "The time is always right to do what is right."

                  Anyway, you can continue to cower from gay rights issues. Not a big deal to me.

  •  It's About Damn Time!! (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, AUBoy2007, Krush

    Unless people want the draft brought back, something MUST be done to ease the burden of the few families & soldiers that are shouldering the load of multiple deployments and too much time away from home. Hell, if convicted felons are being allowed in, why not patriotic homosexuals who actually WANT to join? The whole stinkin' policy never made sense anyway. Were people afraid that homosexual soldiers were going to get the "gay" on them?

    "I am the one who speaks for the spirit of freedom & decency in you." Hunter S. Thompson

    by CityLightsLover on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:32:56 AM PDT

    •  Um yes (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      CityLightsLover
      I believe that is probably all of it

      They don't wan't to feel uncomfortable undressing, or being in close quarters with someone who might be sexually attracted to them.

      Of course that argument doesn't work anymore because of the sucess of female and males working closely together now during major combat.

      The embodiment of the American Spirit:"I'm risking my life for people I hate, for reason's I don't quite understand. Gotta Go."-Homer Simpson

      by Krush on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:45:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gays in the MILITARY? WTF?! (5+ / 0-)

    You know why they don't want us to serve in the military openly?  Because, if we can't serve the country then we are easier to portray as godless pansie girly-bois who all have HIV and take crystal meth.

    See, if we can serve, according to this society's twisted morality then we are REAL PEOPLE, and gods dammit, if we are real people then who the hell is James Fraking Dobson to say we can't marry?

    Dammit Dobson, those men were the only survivors of the Rashid al Gul offensive, and you are saying that they can't shack up without your religious police breaking down their doors?! Screw you!

    Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

    by angrytoyrobot on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:33:42 AM PDT

  •  "Discharges declined sharply since 9/11" uh ... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, decembersue, CParis, stevedubya

    does that mean

    (a) 9/11 cured gay people or
    (b) when the army has something important to do, they stop worrying about this shit?

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:42:05 AM PDT

  •  I've never understood something... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    decembersue

    ... how is it that your sex life has ANY relevence to shooting the enemy?

    How is it that some "gay" soldiers would mean the end of "Unit Coherency"?

    What ever happened to being given an ORDER and obeying it?

    Some homophobe's might be uncomfortable with the thought there might be gays.... gee how about the COMFORT of the blacks and hispanics over the knowledge there are some redneck racist dumbasses?

    Whatever happened to SUCK IT UP bitch!?

    What we have here, in the military is a crisis of dicipline. Perhaps McNutcrusher could comment on this. Apparently when given ORDERS not to molest or RAPE women fellow soldiers.... the military has a problem OBEYING the order.

    When the rules clearly prohibit PROSILITIZING in the non-denominational military, soldiers all the way up to 2 star generals DONT OBEY orders.

    How, if you cannot obey a simple order.... keep your sex life to yourself, there will be NO fraternization...how can you be expected to obey an order to assault a machinegun nest, etc, etc?

    The military has a CRISIS of DICIPLINE that must be addressed, or we have alot more to worry about than some gays or women in the military.

    •  The main rationale (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      The Jester

      was the security risk.  If you were gay, and someone found out, you could be blackmailed.

      As I've pointed out before, that only works if you care if they're gay.  In other words, you create the security risk by assuming the security risk.

  •  As a gay veteran who became an activist (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, CityLightsLover

    I was surprised at the reaction of the late, great Randy Barnes when I announced that I really couldn't be really visable on Post Traumatic Stress because I'm gay.

    In a phone call, Barnes said something like, "I don't give a shit if you are gay, straight or bi.  We need your help."

    If you really want to bore jimstaro or testvet, try to engage them in a discussion on Gays in The Military. They don't care, either.

    Possum for Congress Make Peace Possible. Jerry Northington.

    by llbear on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:44:01 AM PDT

  •  And of course gays aren't the only ones (4+ / 0-)

    who will benefit from getting rid of this law. A friend of mine who left the military a few years back told me women were often targets of accusations or threats of accusation as part of harassment, regardless of whether they were gay or not.  There was this idea that is someone wanted to go after you, they'd say you were gay.

    •  Yeah, to a LunkHead... (0+ / 0-)

      ... if she wont have sex with random redneck fool, she MUST be a lesbian? Right? Of course, it's obvious. ;-)

      How about NO FRATERNIZATION of any kind what so ever. So nobody is having or not having sex with anyone, ever.

      You fall in LUUUUV... one of you resigns, or at the very least is re-assigned on the opposite side of the world.

      If you get caught... gay/straight/pony-fucker/whatever...you are prosecuted and dishonorably discharged, end of story.

      You are PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, you have a job to do, do it, and leave your pecker/whatever at home.

      The Romans had roaming brothel's (gay AND straight) for a REASON. You want to tell me some 2,000 yr old morons had a better understanding of military dicipline than the Pentagon in 2008?

  •  While I hate DADT as much as anybody... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    totallynext

    you're crazy if you think this is going to be one of the first issues that Obama gets to in his administration. There's too much bad political baggage associated with the issue of gays in the military from the Clintons' experience in 1993. Change will come, but it's not going to be until a lot of the president's other political priorities are behind him.

  •  Are there that many conservative Dems? (0+ / 0-)

    I hadn't thought they call the shots on legislation like that after 2006?

  •  Talk about "shooting yourself in the foot" ... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Grendel, Larry Bailey, nanobubble

    The military has booted 12,500 servicemembers under "don't ask, don't tell."

    Yes, it is time -- time to set the record straight (so to speak) and account for the many thousands of GBL servicemen and women who have served their country with honor and distinction.

    It's time for the military to own and disavow their participation in this latest incarnation of discrimination.

    And it's time for the US government to finally do the right thing -- stop its official persecution of queer people for political means and to embrace and celebrate them, for the first time, as full citizens.

    McCain: "I think that clearly my fortunes have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq" ... Buh-bye!

    by RevJoe on Wed Jul 23