Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gay rights group warns service members not to take 'don't ask, don't tell' survey

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 3:40 p.m. ET
A gay rights group pushing for a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is warning gay and lesbian service members not to participate in a Defense Department survey distributed this week to active-duty and reserve troops.

The Pentagon is studying the potential impact of repealing the gay ban and on Wednesday began e-mailing troops a link to a survey with more than 100 questions. The survey will be included in a final report due to President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen by Dec. 1.

But the nonpartisan Servicemembers Legal Defense Network reminded gay and lesbian service members on Thursday that the military is still enforcing the gay ban and that completing the survey could result in a discharge.

About 200,000 active-duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops will receive the survey, which should take no more than 30 minutes to complete, the Pentagon said. Troops have until Aug. 15 to complete it. Another 150,000 family members of troops will receive a separate survey in early August.

The survey asks service members about their general experiences in the military, about past experiences serving with people they believe are gay or lesbian and for opinions on how repealing the gay ban might impact retention, referrals, unit cohesion, privacy and military family life, the Pentagon said.

Troops may also provide extended comments to a “confidential online dialogue” established by the Defense Department. Service members will be given a PIN code to access the program, which is being operated by independent research firm Westat, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith. The code has no personal identifying data and program moderators will delete a service member’s name if they share it, she said.

Troops who do not receive a survey can provide comments to the online dialogue at

SLDN said it worried gay and lesbian service members could be outed by the survey.

“While the surveys are apparently designed to protect the individual’s privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself," SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement. "If a service member still wishes to participate, he or she should only do so in a manner that does not reveal sexual orientation.”

On Thursday Gates called the survey “a very important element” of the ongoing study.

“I strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms,” Gates told reporters. “We organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses through a third party, and it’s important that we hear from them as well as everybody else.”

Fred Sainz, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, said his group also supports the survey. “The Pentagon made clear that the survey is not a referendum on open service but rather is meant to identify problems so that when open service begins, they can have strategies developed to address them. Based on that understanding, we would encourage gay and lesbian service members to take the survey.”

Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California’s Palm Center, which studies gays in the military, said his think tank will closely scrutinize the survey.

“Because service members are just now being educated about the ramifications of ending the policy, we anticipate that the survey results will not be supportive of repeal,” Belkin said.

The White House in May brokered a deal between lawmakers and gay rights groups that would repeal the Clinton-era policy by ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes its study. The House approved the measure as part of the annual defense spending bill and the Senate is expected approve it later this year.

Republican lawmakers said passing a repeal before completion of the Pentagon study would deter service members and their families from participating. Gates provided only tepid support of the agreement and later reminded troops that repeal is still months away.

But a federal court case could end the policy sooner. A California federal judge on Tuesday issued a written order denying a government request to dismiss a suit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans that challenges the constitutionality of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The case is set to start next Tuesday in Riverside, Calif.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

By Ed O'Keefe  | July 8, 2010; 9:45 AM ET
Categories:  Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Can you crack the Cyber Command code?
Next: Byrd's staff must sort 'a lifetime of work'


it would ultimately lead to 2 classes of people in the Navy...can't force a normal person to room with a gay one in closed quarters for at least 6 months at a time...sounds like it'll only work if you segregate them...that's what happens when lobbyists and politicians try to mess with the military (which Barry must be an expert on with his 6 whole hours with the troops!!)

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

When has the Pentagon ever surveyed it's soldiers? Aren't they supposed to take orders? We're they surveyed for the integration of Blacks? No. We're they surveyed about going to war based upon lies? No. Imagine applying for a job at a company and the company surveys it's employees to find their comfort level about working with you. The Pentagon is turning out to be the enemy of America. They certainly are not working to protect and defend the constitution. President Obama needs to put a stop to this madness.

Posted by: madest | July 8, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Yes, having straight people and gay people serve their country will be logistically impossible, which is why no other country does it.

Oh, except:
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

Posted by: minorthread | July 8, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I don't know where ya'll are from...but 75% of the people I know are in the military, including a former Commander of the Iraqi war, current Admirals, soon Gen Odierno....bottom line is that you cannot force a soldier to share close quarters with someone that is gay...they didn't join under those circumstances and therefore, it means breach of contract!! unless you want a gay wing and a straight wing? we're nothing like those other comparing the US military to Malta and Estonia!!! We are at war. Thought that was common knowledge but people seem to forget that muslims will target members that they believe are homosexuals (I had a long discussion during a layover in Dulles with a member of our Army who was headed here to Norfolk to be shipped to Iraq, on 4th of July)

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Surfchick, They "force" soldiers to do stuff all the time. It's called taking orders. If they're not capable of taking orders they shouldn't be in the military.

Posted by: madest | July 8, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

oh...and the problem with them taking orders is that the higher ups aren't going to give those orders!! most of the military feels like they've been railroaded so obozo can appeal to a group of people

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I'm a navy brat you moron!! I've lived in the military lifestyle for 21 yrs of my life! They receive orders related to their jobs....rooming with a homosexual isn't in the job description!!

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Surfchick, you're dumb. Obama is their commander and chief and is a million times smarter than you. Go grab your robes and pointy hood and burn a cross you moron.

Posted by: madest | July 8, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

it's going to work out just as well as barry's exec order to have Gitmo closed (I hope he realizes there's a full navy base there too, probably not) last in denial, I don't care!! I go to the source!!

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Yeah there's a little thing called the constitution. It's sort of the rules for America. The closing of guantanamo is necessary because it's un-constitutional. Gay marriage will be a reality soon because denying gay people equality is un-constitutional. get an education. Read a book, understand the constittion and you might have an argument. Right now you're just a dumb hick that doesn't like blacks or gays.

Posted by: madest | July 8, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I'll pass that along to Adm Fallon....when you have no coherent point to make...just call people names! especially the part about the pointy hood and robe since this has nothing to do with blacks! I'm still waiting for Mr Soetoro to unveil this great wisdom he has....not holding my breath!! Commander-in-Chief is a title he doesn't deserve! The military take oaths also, to protect America from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!! They've been in for years and now have to serve under someone who opposed aid to the troops and the surge as a senator! There's no loyalty to one man in our military...just look at Petreus!! He's got bo by the balls and did away with that whole timeline bs! The type of actions you want Mr 38% approval to engage in are those of a dictator, not a leader. He has yet to show that he can do anything other than campaign!!

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I am black you ignorant fool

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

What you know about the military and the America would fit in a thimble.

Posted by: madest | July 8, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

the constitution says that we have unalienable rights endowed by our creator...marriage isn't one of them, it's a sacrament whose purpose is pro-creation....most states already give them hospital rights and other rights that are usually reserved for married couples and I have no problem with, though, have a problem with the truth since all I did was give the opinions of individuals from different ranks in the military since no one else has bothered to see how they may be affected! You might want to try counseling for those anger management issues though!! later loser!!

Posted by: surfchick757 | July 8, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

For the record, gays and lesbians are already serving in the military. This means that they are already staying in the same rooms and fighting in the same wars as straight people. Haven't been any problems so far and there won't be after they're open about it.

Posted by: postergirl3 | July 8, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The politics of this is an affront to our military. How can anyone ask me to put my life on the line for this country and then tell me I have to be subjected to having a pervert for a roommate. This is how Obama plans to tell us all to do as I say I am your leader. The leader is leading us closer to Hell and that road is not the high road. Tell the civilian leaders of the military to bunk with Barney Frank and they may not think this is such a great rule to have pushed on our great men and women in the military.

Posted by: jerry110 | July 8, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Surfchick, Like I said what you know about America and the constitution would fit in a thimble. the unalienable rights endowed by out creator was the Declaration of Independence you empty headed bimbo. GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Posted by: madest | July 8, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm a navy brat you moron!! I've lived in the military lifestyle for 21 yrs of my life! They receive orders related to their jobs....rooming with a homosexual isn't in the job description!!__________

Neither is living with morons and bigots, but gay soldiers do it all the time under MORE STRESSFUL CIRCUMSTANCES For them than any other.

You all need to get off your high horses. You want to throw out several HUNDRED THOUSAND troops THEN GET READY FOR THE ALL STRAIGHT DRAFT -- and you can bet your life it won't be the members of congress that will be serving --- it will be the sons of bigots and morons that will be serving.

Posted by: racerdoc | July 8, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The civilian leaders of our military including Obama should have to bunk with Barney Frank for a week and see if they still support such a rule for the real men and women of the military.
We do not need to be forced to deal with openly perverts to live in the same quarters with us. It is hard enough to be sent to Iraq to fight for our country but then to be told you have to tolerate queers living in the same quarters, that is just too much

Posted by: jerry110 | July 8, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Surfchick is voting with her bigotry.

Now, tells how you feel about the Blacks and the Jews

Posted by: bobbarnes | July 8, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Quote:they didn't join under those circumstances and therefore, it means breach of contract!!

No, it doesn't. An enlistment is qualitatively different from a contract in that the person who enlists is specifically giving up several rights -- like not being able to get tattoos, not being able to choose where to live or which occupation to hold.

Posted by: Fabrisse | July 8, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

next will we ask our soldiers and their relatives if they want to go to war and fight for our country?? how stupid this is, we are fighting 2 wars right now but dont believe in equal rights for all americans!! oh jezus pleeze.

Posted by: willemkraal | July 8, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Gays and lesbians are already serving in the military. Presumably most gay soldiers are already sharing quarters with hetero soldiers

The only issue here is seems to be that some hetero soldiers are just too faint of heart to know the truth about their fellow soldiers.

For those who cannot handle such a harmless reality, I suggest that military service may not the best choice of careers. Maybe art or theater would be a better choice for those who prefer to live in a fictional world of their own making.

Posted by: Freestinker | July 8, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Setting aside any sexual privacy issues with gays in the military, straight male connection to other males is based what gay males would consider a one-dimensional link: common interests only. In the simplest possible terms if another male's greatest interest is the last thing I would be interested in doing that kind of presents a fundamental impediment to the kind of camaraderie that military life requires (for men -- don't know how any of this pertains to female sociobiology).

"Deeper" sociobilogical explanation of this phenomenon if you will: human male PACK hunters possess a great behavioral imperative to think in the third person (try to get a new concept considered by the brightest males and they instantly check in with what everybody else is talking about -- if not currently discussed it tends disappears so fast they don't remember it).

Odd sociobiology: while I would not want to share a foxhole (never been in military) with someone who was out (their announced need would make it feel too much like a date), if I knew (I always know -- more on that) but he stayed deep in the closet I would not feel uncomfortable -- sort of "live the fantasy" -- definitely a programmed tendency.

No homophobe here: first place I moved as an adult was Chelsea in Manhattan in the '60s, had a gay teen half my age living with me for a year in Bronx in the '70s, three years as an SF taxi driver.

What homosexuality is (figured out with gay kid): anybody who has no inkling at all they are getting in my face when they are getting in my space is always gay. Gays see in women what straights of both sexes are PROGRAMMED to see as the overweening, madly territorial ego. I believe this can even be manipulated to bring them back half way to AC/DC (from a normal shrink in the 70s; not a NARTH).

Gay soldiers understand the need to stay in the closet for the same reasons that eighth grade gays understand. They just don't want to be kicked out if discovered. There is plenty of room in our giant forces where there would be no harm (doesn't begin with gay DIs potentially preying on recruits -- or straight recruits being exposed to loss of sexual privacy).

Posted by: DenisDrew | July 8, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Wow its really funny how SOME (i say some because not all heterosexual individuals are narrow minded) hetero people think that just because you are attracted to the same sex that automatically means that you are attracted to EVERY same sex person you meet. That is so not the case. Is every hetero individual attracted to ALL other hetero individuals....NO The same goes for gay/lesbian individuals. And being gay/lesbian does not mean you wake up with sex on your mind 24/7. Some of you guys are just being so disrespectful and just sound stupid. Before you go spitting out untruths why don't you take the time one day to sit down and educate yourself about something you obviously know nothing about. Until then SHUT UP -- yes this was directed towards ronjaboy and jerry110

Posted by: LadyT1 | July 8, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I guess the first, all military, "gay pride" parade down the main street of San Fransisco with Nancy Pelosi marching front and center will have to be postponed for another year.

Darn, the luck!

Posted by: battleground51 | July 8, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I would like to remind President Obama that if the military had surveyed their members on other human and civil rights issues we would most likely still not have African Americans serving in the military as equals or women for that matter.

The idea of doing a survey is both insulting and stupid. Since since some of our military leaders are openly homophobic what do we expect from those under their command.

It is time that Congress pass the DADT agreement that has already seen too many compromises and that President Obama as Commander in Chief then order the military to end the policy.

It is time to end this policy and if Senator Webb of Virginia and some of the other military men in the Senate don't see that then I think we should work to defeat them. There are some like Congressman Sestak who has both the guts and common sense to see that this is an outdated policy. Time to get rid of it now.

Posted by: peterdc | July 8, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

surfchick, your 'point' that you can't force "normal" soldiers to bunk next to gay ones has nothing to do with ending DADT. Under DADT, those soldiers ARE bunking next to gay soldiers ... they just don't know it. The fact that nothing has happened because of their proximity to their gay counterparts proves you wrong.

Posted by: pointillicist | July 8, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

There's articles about Barack H. Obama being out first female president. Maybe this is true. Maybe Obama is morbidly, sexually disoriented. That would explain his obsession with the homosexual, military thing. Obama certainly can't be after the votes of the sexually retarded, there's just not enough of them.

That's it! Obama is a sexual oddity. There's no other explanation for his bizarre behavior.

Posted by: battleground51 | July 8, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"A survey? Uhh, duhh, well, uh, I MIGHT wet my pants, if I find out someone in my unit is gay! Uh, I'd go AWOL, yea, that's what I'd do. And what about THAT dude?! He's not gay?? I swear I always knew he was a f**… hmm, and THAT chick is just so--- MANLY, I just KNEW she wuz a dy*e - what? she's married with kids? oh… well, at least the Army values my opinion when it comes to cleaning out our military. I mean, don't get me STARTED about the oriental dudes, and where is THAT chick from, she doesn't even look… human! Praise god there are at least some christian white people manning my gunpost, and I mean MAN-ing, jesus…" -signed, A Concerned Patriot

Posted by: LawsLuvr | July 8, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

wow i couldn't even force myself to read all these stupid comments for those of you who are brain dead they are already rooming in close quarters with homosexuals everyday of every month of evey year, it's not like they would be wearing signs it's really all about benefits period some of the best soldiers sailors airman and marines are homosexual and at the end of the day the job is getting done and it's getting done well. if your so homophobic that you can't complete your job then you should get out or kill yourself (<-which i feel is the best option)they are everywhere doing everything and that will never change.

Posted by: ceep22 | July 8, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure that if Harry Truman had surveyed the troops in 1948 as to their level of enthusiasm at having to share their barracks with blacks, and even take showers with them, and GASP even take orders from them, they would have been wildly enthusiastic, even the ones from states that were barred interracial marriage.

Since Surfchick claims to be a Black woman with decades of experience as a military brat, and appears to be the only black woman I've ever encountered who refers to President Obama as "Barry" (unless she knew him from an earlier life?), her perspectives will be invaluable.

Posted by: edallan | July 8, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Looks like first we'll have to purge the rednecks out of the military.

Posted by: jp1954 | July 8, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

So you have an opinion or are you just collecting a pay check ? Your article is boring and doesn't explain the complexities of this matter. Reads like basic 6th grade text. This should be a disgrace and what gov. branch would OUT soilders serving their country, while the rest of the civilized world has no problem ( see above: minorthread's list | July 8, 2010 11:06 AM) No heart or passion in this article -SAD!

Posted by: crrobin | July 8, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Good Christ on a cross! Asserting that the continuation of DADT is rooted in anything other than bigoted, uneducated, misguided, and flagrantly irresponsible ideas is idiotic. The fact that you don't like gays or the idea of a unified armed forces is no longer relevant. Go back to complaining about abortion rights or integrated school systems.

Asserting that the Commander-in-Chief does not have real, moral, or any other form of authority over the armed forces is just insanely stupid. Seriously, you cannot honestly believe this argument holds any water. If you do, I might suggest Dr. Kevorkian or denouncing your citizenship and moving to Afghanistan.

The suggestion that lifting DADT will result in crazed homosexuals butt raping of'heterosexual' soldiers or in any way compromise our strike and defense abilities is beyond any reason.

Several other countries have ended their bans and become open armed forces and they seem to be doing fine. In fact, many of their commanders say their better for it. Independent studies have been done, real qualitative and quantitative research is available. You just need to demonstrate a modicum of intellectual ability, openness, and honesty. Alas, evidence so far suggests you're not able to do that at all.

You're arguments are old and tired. Your beliefs reveal more about yourself than they influence anyone to see things your way. While I respect your right to have these thoughts, I thank the Founding Fathers that I can 1.) reveal you for the idiot you are and 2.) men and women greater than you rise to positions within our government to not only protect us from foreign threats, but from the idiots within.

Posted by: hohum80 | July 8, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I left the military after my 5 year obligation (I am a service academy grad) because of the military’s policy on homosexuality. Both during my time on active duty, and beyond, I met officers and enlisted who were gay, who were not gay and did not care, and those who were straight and were extremely upset at the thought of gay service members. The bottom line is that the military is made up of all types of people, and some part of it will not be happy with whatever decision is made. Gay men and lesbians do not have any more proclivities to have sex with every same-sex person they meet, as straight people have with opposite sex partners. We have been successfully socializing the introduction of women into formerly all male domains within the military for the past 30 years. Is it 100% perfect? No! Is it better now than in 1980? Absolutely! Change takes time, and this change will also take time. Service members do take an oath to protect and defend, but they also swear to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them.
Our government is partially based on the practice of civilian control of the military. If the President and Congress decided to allow gay services members to serve, then it will happen, and all good service men will follow the orders given to them, and those who do not, will leave the service.
The issue is one of choices. The risks that arise between equal rights and unit cohesiveness will be evaluated by people far more qualified than those of us reading the on-line Post. Simple facts still remain:
1) Gay people serve today
2) Gay people who have “come out” to their superiors are still serving because the “nation” needs their skills while we are at war.
3) Straight people who find that gay members of society are “perverts” serve today, and will in the future.
4) The risks of injury and death in a war zone are the same no matter who you sleep with
5) In this county, service in the military is a choice, and our current situation requires that as many people as possible, make that choice.

Posted by: The_Rat | July 8, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Surfchick757 is just trying to legitimize her bigotry (notice how in her first post she refers to straight people as normal, which suggests that gay people are abnormal). This same argument was used by those opposed to racial integration of the forces. My father was a career military office who retired at the rank of admiral. He knows many lesbians and gay men who served in the military, and he had no problem with them as long as they did their jobs. In fact, as a military brat who has many friends in the different branches of the service, I can't think of a single person who is opposed to lifting the ban. Most of them already admit that there are lesbians and gays in the military. Until you have factual evidence that suggests letting openly gay people serve is a threat to unit cohesion, keep your bigoted comments to yourself. As others have already mentioned, many nations allow lesbians and gay men to serve in the military and there have been no adverse affects on unit cohesion.

Posted by: binaryboy | July 8, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the military is quizzing the ranks and all family members because it will NOT always be an all-volunteer military, as we presume. That is already being proposed in some circles: cut gov't spending, keep or increase military spending, continue the spending (umm, I mean borrowing) for both faraway wars/policing/nation-building we are waging. Then cut social security etc and draft all the unemployed into the military to go to the middle east. Or at least South Arizona-stan. But yea, the draft has never been "off the table". Nope, talk about a "stimulus"...

Posted by: LawsLuvr | July 8, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Get over yourselves! 75% of Americans are ready for this repeal! Gay or Straight, you should be able to serve this country! If you guys don't like it, then why don't you grow some balls and join the Military and fight for our Freedom!

Posted by: thomasAlex | July 8, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"...they didn't join under those circumstances and therefore, it means breach of contract!"


You're a nincompoop.

There is no contract in the U.S. military that expressly guarantees that you won't have to work with gay people. And since "work" in the military involves sharing living quarters, there's no breach of anything going on.

Read a book and stop being a ninny.

Posted by: haveaheart | July 8, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

postergirl3 You obviously haven't served in the military. One of the people in my department caught a gay man fondling him while he slept. That man had 3 accidents in 4 days. Not caused by the man he fondelled (it was investigated) Fortunately for him the aft lookout saw him in the water and called man overboard all three times. He had to be transfered off the ship for his own protection. If you think bunking openly gay people with the heterosexuals would work you probably think men and women could bunk together and not have a problem. I guarantee it wont. The only reason gays aren't killed more often in the military is no one knows who they are. the don't ask don't tell policy is what is keeping them alive. The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God. I don't condone injuring gays but it will happen more often if they are well known. A lot of grudges are answered during war with friendly fire. I personally would rather not have some guy learing at me while changing my clothes. There is little or no privacy in bunking spaces. At least for now I don't have to deal with people openly looking at me that way. That will change if they are allowed to declare themselves and bad things will happen to them.

Posted by: literck | July 8, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Every military person I ever asked (at least 10 career soldiers) said they knew and had served with several gay soldiers without problems. The only ones that thought they did not were very open haters, and all of them are 60+ now.

If you list the best armed forces in the world, my cut at it would be.
France (yes they are, get over it)
Denmark, and the other Northern European NATO's

and the USA is the only one which does not allow openly serving homosexuals. The USA has suffered greatly for this in the current conflict, losing vital translators and other soldiers. Its can also be a get out of the military free card, if you are willing to take it. The USA if far, far better off if anyone who will not follow orders being out of the military. If our military is so uniquely out of control among Western Nations that we can not get them to conform to social norms, then we are far better off bringing them all home and radically down sizing the military since if they are unwilling to follow orders they are by far the greatest threat to the USA out there.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | July 8, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

battleground51 you need to get help. President Obama has hardly focus on Don't Ask Don't tell. Unlike President Clinton, he did not even address it for a whole year. Is President Clinton Gay? Since 70% of the population wants this to change, that is a failure on his part. The only reason to fear homosexuals is fear on ones own sexual identity. This has been proven time and again by all the anti-gay leaders who turn out not only to be gay, but real bottom feeders who only go for the most perverse of gay relationships like random bathroom encounters. I suspect you have little to worry about, since your general attitudes and lack of polish should keep the majority of homosexuals from giving you a chance to act on your inter desires, thought you might want to stay away from banjo playing inbreeds on a Deliverance nature since you would likely fit right in.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | July 8, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

A cost benefit analysis will need to be a factor in the decision. I don't see that panning out considering how few gays there really are. Let's go by what the voters have said and not activist bureaucrats. Gay states get gay foster parents. Children deserve an upbringing according to social norms. Vote against the homosexual agenda every chance you get.

Posted by: wpJohn | July 8, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

How many of you are serving or have actually served in the military? IMO if you aren't serving in the military then you should just keep out of this because it really doesn't affect you at all. That is what is wrong with the world today, everyone is worried about someone else or someone else and their business. Worry about yourself, the military can take care of itself. It doesn't need your tears for the don't ask don't tell. If you want to serve, serve. Gay, straight, black, brown, yellow or whatever. BUT when you raise your hand and swear the oath you give UP YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. You CANNOT cut your hair how you want, wear whatever earrings you want (men esp) and the list goes on. So anyone using the 'constitutional rights' line to push for 'gays' in the military is bunk. You don't have rights, you don't have freedoms. You don't get the freedom of expression, any expression. There are 'gays' in the military and they are fine because they live the same life as everyone else and follow rules just like everyone else. Why should we change a good thing? What will it benefit? They lie just like everyone else when they enlist. Have you ever broken any bones? No. How many people have said that? If you want to serve, serve and deal with the sacrifice that goes with it.

Posted by: thirdthief16 | July 8, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

literck wrote "I personally would rather not have some guy learing at me while changing my clothes."

Do you really think that you are irresistable to others? Does the sexual appear simply ooze from your pores?

*Shakes head while laughing*

Posted by: Ken_Davis1 | July 8, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Why does hyper-link given in this piece, at: "...Troops who do not receive a survey can provide comments to the online dialogue at"
Go to a page that has an outdated security certificate?

Posted by: classified2 | July 8, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I served in the Navy for 6 years in the 80s. We had a gay guy in our shop, and everybody knew he was gay. He did his job well, worked hard, and was well liked, and that was all that mattered to us. The only ones who seemed to be really bothered by the thought of serving with gays were people who were overt bigots in general, and who, ironically, were for the most part lazy slackers and were generally disliked.

There were plenty of such bigots on our boat, and our gay shipmate (and the rest of us in the shop) were smart enough to avoid any mention of his orientation in front of them. During a South American cruise, he won the beauty contest held as a part of the Crossing the Line festivities and reigned over the ceremonies as the Queen of the Royal Court. Under the circumstances, those of us who knew him found that utterly hilarious.

In my opinion, eliminating DADT can only be a positive step, and it would play a significant role in reducing/eliminating bigotry against GLBT people and normalizing their place in our society.

Posted by: TunaMcDermott | July 8, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Cross dressing drill sargents in our future? If so, I'll be betting on the Taliban.
In bar near base "That you sarge.. in the miniskirt and red pumps.?" "yeah, but tonight call be Babbs"

Posted by: twharvey1 | July 8, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Surfchick, 50 years ago. It was "We can't expect our soldiers to sleep with n*ggers." This is no different. I am ex Navy as well honey, and if you think all those boys are straight, you are as delusional as the rest of the Tea Baggers.

Posted by: dbrown52 | July 8, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

surfchick's objection to gay service members applies equally to female service members; in garrison, this may be merely a logistical problem, but what happens when the military is sent out to do what the military does?

I have no own service was many years ago, in the Marine Corps...but are female soldiers in combat zones, like Iraq, segregated from male soldiers in their billets and so forth? I doubt that this can be done consistently, without seriously compromising the mission, but it hasn't stopped female soldiers from serving, and hasn't stopped the Pentagon from assigning them to work in combat zones. And they don't have to pretend they aren't really female.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | July 8, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I have no sympathy to homos who choose to join and/or stay in the military.

Why would you subject yourself to such emotional trauma when you clearly know that you are not welcome as well as hated by the military? Why would you subject yourself to such humiliation? It just doesn't make sense to me. My Dad was in the military and he strongly recommended that I don't join the army because I'm a homo. We also quit going to our church because they hate homos.

There are so many others options when it comes to serving your country. Is joining the military really the only option you have when it comes to serving your country?

Instead of crying about why some people and organization hate homos, I'm devoting myself to helping children and animals who are in need of my unconditional help. I also make sure that I don't support (especially monetary-wise) any companies, stores, organizations, and clubs who promote hatred toward homos. I make every effort I can to find out these hateful entities.

To some you may find it bizarre, but I always ask the homeless (who ask me for money) first if he/she is against homos. I don't give them anything if they are against homos. I also ask stores before I shop (especially online stores).

Instead of constantly whining, all homos should make every effort to be more productive by supporting only those who are homo-friendly. I make an effort not to invest any of my time and money with bigots.

To Surfchick, I'm laughing my ass off because your black and you're such an effing bigot! Blacks especially should never be a BIGOT. Obviously, you didn't learn anything from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's wisdom

Posted by: iPhonetificator | July 8, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

What good advice? Tell them, I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.

Posted by: treedbrent | July 8, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

This sorry excuse for a Commander in Chief sure knows how to instill confidence and respect in his troops. Can't believe they would actually do this. For what reason ? Maybe they should poll congress first starting with Peter Puffing Barney. Love to hear his thoughts on the subject. Next, poll all the senior officers still hiding in the closet at the Pentagon.

Posted by: Eyeugize | July 8, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Same old, same old .....

Gays keep attacking Heterosexuals for not accepting the perverted lifestyle they think is just dandy.

I have never understood that Big Insistence Gays have of wanting to have the preverted things they do accepted as if they are okay. I find it very interesting that St. Paul says, in Romans 1:32 "Although they know the just decree of God, that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." Even Paul was aware of how much these people seek "approval" for the perverted things they do!

I have been "hit on" a bunch of times by Gays and my experience has been that, once one of them gets it in his mind to "Have me!", he will keep pestering me no matter how many times I say NO!

By definition, Homosexuality is "perverted" and it is that simple. There is a whole long list of perverted behaviors, such as: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, child molestation, bestiality (sex with animals). All of these things are sins and, sooner or later, everyone who does them will have to answer to God for it!

Read Romans 1 where God clearly defines homosexuality as sinful and perverted. That's good enough for me.

Do I fear homosexuals? No Way! Do I think their "choice" is okay? No Way! Do I want to be in the military and possibly be forced to room with someone who might decide to keep hitting on me no matter what I say? NO BLOODY WAY!

As a practical matter, I know very well that, if a woman is sleeping, a man can gently start caressing and touching her in ways that arouse her and will make her wake up wanting sex. And, she won't be angry, just real passionate. Then again, she may wake up and say, "Leave me alone; I want to sleep." And, so it goes, but at least it is not perverted.

But, if anyone thinks I am going to go to sleep with the possibility of some Gay guy gently touching me to try to arouse me into having sex with him, YOU BETTER THINK AGAIN! If that ever happened, one of us would end up DEAD! End of story.

And, if anyone thinks I am going to put myself into a situation like that, you also better think again.

When I go to bed, it is TO SLEEP! It may be to have sex with the woman I love, and then go to sleep alongside her. We might even go to sleep, with her deciding to get me aroused after I fall asleep, and that's fine too.

But, join the Military, and have to room with some Gay who might pull some crap on me, NO POSSIBILITY! When I need sleep, I need to sleep! But, I sure won't sleep decently in a situation like that.

Like it, don't like it. I couldn't care less! Give my life for my country, okay, even though I don't intend it to end that way. If it happens, so be it!

But, force me to live with a Gay who may give me problems, Forget it!

Posted by: Veritatis1 | July 9, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

fr surfchick757:

>.......bottom line is that you cannot force a soldier to share close quarters with someone that is gay...they didn't join under those circumstances and therefore, it means breach of contract!...<

So, "bottom line", you would have denied Alexander the Great a place in the Roman legions. Guess what? He was GAY.

Get over it, and grow UP.

Posted by: Alex511 | July 9, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The survey is just collecting data not doing analysis so hard to justify the position. Very cynical maneuver. Now these gay groups can claim that the number of gay members in the service is much higher than what the study will show because they advised gays not to participate. Of course, this should be a "non-issue" but we seem to be at war with ourselves and using every cheap strategy to further divide America.

Posted by: icmop911 | July 9, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Don't kid yourself, America, we straight military guys know who's gay and who isn't gay in our units, and we don't particularly give a damn. I can tell you one thing for sure. A gay guy in our unit in Vietnam made those lonely jungle nights a little less lonely. Surprised? That's too bad, because it's none of our damn business.

Posted by: georges2 | July 11, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

As others have indicated there are gay people *TODAY* (and in the past) that have served along side straight people. Not a straight person was hurt doing so.

When I served for 2.5 years over in Germany I was but 1 of 3 others that were gay in our barracks room. No one knew and no one was molested or hurt in any way (except a captain who got a black mark on his record for bringing me on charges for something that was non-gay related (that I know of). He was told he was in the wrong and to back off on trying to charge me with being AWOL, which I wasn't).

I found the Army life to be bad and when they attempted to get me to stay in I laughed in their faces and told them that the minute I got out of the army my salary would be 6 times what it was in the army and I would not have to dress up in a uniform and my peers would be at least equal to me. The recruiter knew when he wasn't going to discuss re-uping.

I personally cannot fathom why anyone (gay or straight or otherwise) would choose to join the army but those that find it is for them let them serve if they want to.

Posted by: ps2os2 | July 13, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

As to the questionnaire. If I were in the army I would not finish it, I would toss it. *IF* the return address was one of the big companies that do pole taking I would probably fill it out as ay least we know the numbers would be semi valid (assuming the Pentagon did not send out multiple questionnaire's so they could be made out to be something that they are not.

I do not trust the Pentagon in this repeat do not trust the pentagon. As someone indicated before they will try and trace who sent it back and even if there are no way to trace it the pentagon probably will have it examined for finger prints and or DNA.

Posted by: ps2os2 | July 13, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company