Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

'Don't ask, don't tell' policy facing a Senate vote next week

By Ed O'Keefe

The Senate will vote next week on its version of the annual Defense Department authorization bill -- a measure that includes language repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Aides to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed Monday that a vote will occur next week. Potential differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill would still have to be hammered out, so final passage and a presidential signature still appear distant.

Gay rights groups are mounting an aggressive lobbying effort this week, urging supporters of the repeal (including Lady Gaga) to phone senators to urge them to vote for the military bill.

But Obama's signature on the authorization bill would not end the policy outright: He would still need to certify a Pentagon study of how repealing "don't ask" might impact troop morale and readiness. The report is due to Obama and military leaders by Dec. 1. The Defense Department would move forward with repealing the policy once Obama certifies the report.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

By Ed O'Keefe  | September 13, 2010; 6:56 PM ET
Categories:  Congress, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Federal building security bill unveiled
Next: Obama to federal managers: Get to work

Comments

As much as I am for G ay rights. And as much as I like Gaga. Lesbians are great but the other side is terrible. Stop propagandizing. Some of your people on your side are over here burning the Qu'ran, while you give the Middle East another reason for all out war. Fighting a homosexual army. Both are legitimate. No one fights wants to fight Iran right now. Please stop giving them reasons to overrun Iraq. And the Iraqis reason to switch sides and turn on us.

Seann

Posted by: spk202 | September 13, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

DODT should be considered for repeal under reasonable advancement in our poliicies, but even as a Dem, I don;t think it should be hidden in another bill to strong arm Reps. I would like to think they wuld repeal DADT on itsown, but not likely.

Posted by: cadam72 | September 13, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

It is ridiculous, nonsensical and crude for us to find superfluous, emotional and religious reasons to deny the full rights of citizenship to any of class of our citizenry. Could it be the same kind of logic that was behind the burring of ladies in Salem?

Posted by: dikaslogos | September 13, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

How much money and how many lives have been wasted because of this useless law? Don't like gays in the military? Well tough luck, because there are thousands of us already serving out country patriotically while parasites like Elaine Donnelly make their living trying to spread hatred of homosexuals.

Posted by: homer4 | September 13, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

How on God's green Earth does someone come to the belief that sexual orientation has an impact on one's ability to fly a Predator drone?

Posted by: hiberniantears | September 13, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I must disagree with a comment above and correct it for accuracy. There are no constitutional rights when it comes to military service. Title 10 of the US Code governs eligibility for military service and it currently excludes homosexuals who openly display their sexuality. Those that do not violate that law are accepted into service. When Congress changes the law and the President confirms the law, the Title 10 requirement will change and so will those behaviors that are eligible for service. But you will not find any constitutional rights to military service.

Posted by: mnnshw | September 13, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

more homophedia BS. get on with what can be done for the country and not the whining minority who continue to promote their sexual proclivities over important issues. playing their card as the racist and religous lunatics continues to make this country fools in the eyes of our enemies.

Posted by: pofinpa | September 13, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Congress, and some Americans, need to face the reality that gay people exist and serve in the armed forces, and get this DADT silliness repealed. It doesn't accomplish anything except encourage lying. Lets put this stupid law behind us!

Posted by: jaynashvil | September 13, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | September 13, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

G.I.'s can't be all they could be in the land of the free, if they are watched by peepin'toms with gusto' when, lets say,taking a shower in the barracks. Has anyone thought about how unconfortable it must be for straight folks?!

Posted by: WindLessBreeze | September 13, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I think it's a good compromise that was hashed out in the full light of day and represents the will of the people, as well as the values of our Constitution and traditions. Admiral Mullen put it best when he testified under oath to his personal support for repealing the don't ask don't tell regime that in practice has forced patriotic citizens to live a lie to serve in the military. My only regret is that it took so long to get to this point. I strongly support this bill.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter1 | September 13, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

To Smarg - Religion is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by reason.

See, you can put any words together and they make a lot of sense!

More seriously, I wish that this wasn't hidden on a defense spending bill. Human rights should be out in the open, not closeted, if you will, in irrelevant information.

Posted by: pmax | September 13, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online

Welcome to our website

===== http://www.shoes3.us/ =======

accept paypal or credit card and free shipping

We need your support and trust!!!

Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps

To our website Walk around A look at

Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth

You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

===== http://www.shoes3.us/ ========

Posted by: strade24 | September 13, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Repeal of DADT ... yet another reason why democrats will lose their majorities in about 7 weeks. Even if I have to crawl over broken glass and rusty nails all the way to the polling station, I will be there to vote those socialist ********* out of office.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | September 13, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Lady Gaga? Is this the same performer who wasted raw meat for a costume, in the midst of a recession when millions of Americans would love to have some decent meat on their plates other than a fast food hamburger?

I am sure Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell and The Dixie Chicks welcome the newest member to their club of obscenely rich entertainers who use the millions paid to them by their fans at the box office to influence the politics of those followers.

Given the public interest connection that these rich interlopers establish with their political dalliances, concert and movie tickets should disclose what portion of the ticket price will go to the performer's favorite Democrat or Democratic cause.

Posted by: bbwk80a1 | September 13, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

For those of you wishing this wasn't "buried" in a defense authorization bill, need I remind you that this is exactly how the original DADT law was passed? There's a nice symmetry to it.

Posted by: IronyisHot | September 13, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

For clarity, this repeal isn't "hidden" in anything. It's in the defense authorization bill, as considered by the Senate armed services committee, which has jurisdiction over military policy, including DADT. This is NOT the defense appropriations bill, which in fact is the defense "spending" bill.

As far as the commenter who said: "Given the public interest connection that these rich interlopers establish with their political dalliances, concert and movie tickets should disclose what portion of the ticket price will go to the performer's favorite Democrat or Democratic cause." I'll agree to this when Target, Wal-Mart, FOX News (News Corp), and other major corporations will tell ME exactly how much of their earnings are going to be spend on their Republican causes.

Posted by: salf | September 13, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

It was ruled unconstitutional, then why there is even a need to vote. Just tell the military to obey the law.

Posted by: rappahanock | September 13, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

It was ruled unconstitutional, then why there is even a need to vote. President Obama order the military to obey the law and stop discrimination against American citizens.Would you?

Posted by: rappahanock | September 13, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

While serving as First Sea Lord, Churchill was opposed on a policy issue because it was contrary to "Naval tradition." His reply, "Naval tradition is rum, sodomy and the lash." Since we are on the verge of finally and clearly affirming one of those traditions, how about including all three in the DoD authorization and be consistent?

Posted by: feslop | September 13, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Yea lets worry about allowing gays to be out spoken right now do it tonight, lets not worry about the fact that there is still a freaking war going on nooooo lets worry about this crap, look its like this DADT was a compromise if the military has its way and im in the army gays wont be allowed at all, take what you got its uncomfortable to see 2 mwn making out im sorry its just weird and nasty all at once believe me we all know that there are gays in todays military take what youve got and worry about this waste of time bs after the war after all of our troops are home safe you people are pathetic. Soldiers are dieing every single day and all we care about is o plz mr president turn this bill over its so sad that this is a topic right now. Besides all you want is gay benefits thats what this is all really about, but what next CO-ED showers? RIDICULIOUS PEOPLE! o and btw in the military we make jokes about everything including being gay its a right of passage i can hear it now the first gay joke someone body hears and all hell will break loose. Get smart people.

Posted by: nightmare_allstar3 | September 13, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Yea lets worry about allowing gays to be out spoken right now do it tonight, lets not worry about the fact that there is still a freaking war going on nooooo lets worry about this crap, look its like this DADT was a compromise if the military has its way and im in the army gays wont be allowed at all, take what you got its uncomfortable to see 2 men making out im sorry its just weird and nasty all at once believe me we all know that there are gays in todays military take what youve got and worry about this waste of time bs after the war after all of our troops are home safe you people are pathetic. Soldiers are dieing every single day and all we care about is o plz mr president turn this bill over its so sad that this is a topic right now. Besides all you want is gay benefits thats what this is all really about, but what next CO-ED showers? RIDICULIOUS PEOPLE! o and btw in the military we make jokes about everything including being gay its a right of passage i can hear it now the first gay joke someone body hears and all hell will break loose. Get smart people.

Posted by: nightmare_allstar3 | September 13, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

It always comes down to this: Will allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military improve our Nation's Defense?

It's unbelievable to hear people compare the integration of homosexuals into our military to the military integration of African Americans of the 1950s. When will someone, who isn't a homosexual or pushing pro-homosexual propoganda, please show the rest of us the gene that conclusively and objectively destines one to be a homosexual?

Occassionally, the arguement comes up that we should subject our military to the same (lack of moral) standards as the UK, Germany or Denmark. We have the most powerful fighting force on earth! Why would we attempt to mimic inferior militaries?

Nobody has the "Right" to serve in our military. It is a privilidge, and can only be endorsed when someone meets mental, physical and moral standards. Lowering our standards for any reason should be avoided. This isn't an episode of "Friends". We're talking about our National Defense here!

We need our senior political and military leadership to make tough decisions on behalf of America's future as a Superpower able to competently project force around the world to defend our National interests. President Eisenhower who oversaw the racial integration in the military of the 1950s, would be turning in his grave now if he heard people say that one's sexual deviancy is just like someone's race - they're born with it. Show the rest of us the gene!

http://sunriseinamerica.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Phil41 | September 13, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

We do not require that a woman believe or assert that all men are rapists in order to have her privacy secured from all men. Why is it that heterosexual men who wish to have their privacy and safety secured from men who might develop a romantic or sexual interest in them are assailed as homophobes?

We have choices. We can eliminate all sex segregation and rely upon everyone to act as professionals when showering and bunking with members of the opposite sex or members of the same sex who have same-sex sexual orientations. Or we can provide private bunking and bathing facilities for each recruit. Or we can opt for the economic convenience of sex segregation and a presumtpively heterosexual military.

Removing privacy and safety assurances from others to permit gays and lesbians to serve openly is unfair. Gays and lesbians have served heroically and proudly in the military -- as heterosexuals.

Posted by: blasmaic | September 13, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The President is being spineless on this one. It well within his power as Commander-in-Chief (especially during wartime) to countermand all of the orders that give effect to DADT. He now also has the additional cover of clear support from the Congress and from senior military commanders, as well as a federal court finding that DADT is unconstitutional.

Posted by: davidjryan | September 13, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

It's funny that allegedly straight men are so fragile that they couldn't possibly deal with a gay man in their midst. Really?

Posted by: rtaylor3 | September 13, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Let me rephrase the question an earlier commenter asked:

Did allowing people of color to serve in the military improve our Nation's Defense?

Did allowing women to serve in the military improve our Nation's Defense?

Someone's moving goalposts, and feigning outrage in an attempt to keep us from noticing.

Posted by: IronyisHot | September 13, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to see a vote on the issue before the Defense Department's input is heard as anything but a kick in the teeth from politicians concerned with something other than military readiness. This is doubly true because of Congress's previous commitment to wait until the DoD study is completed. I'm far from the only Soldier I know who sees it this way.

I have been very happy to see Congress and the President approach this issue in a responsible manner by allowing the military a period of time to study the likely effects of a policy change. From what I have seen the Army has taken this task very seriously, and is working hard to make sure that Soldiers feel our opinions are being respected and accounted for. The importance of this can't be understated. Regardless of our personal views of the issue, Soldiers will be more accepting of the end result if it is seen as being embraced by the military instead of imposed upon it. This kills that.

Making life easier for gay service members is fine as long as doing so doesn't have a negative impact on our fighting force. Readiness and effectiveness has to come first. Ignoring that in favor of desperate election year attempt to rally the base is beyond shameful.

Posted by: MardiGrasBandit | September 14, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

As a member of our Armed Forces who has fought in this present war, I'd like my voice to be heard. The social engineering of our military promoted by moral libertines (whose new poster child apparently is that paragon of virtue "Lady" Gaga) is, in a word, repulsive to virtually every man and woman I know in the profession of arms. We count it the highest of honors to serve in defense of this country, but we resent this assault on family values, values that provide stability and strength for the warfighter and his/her family. Will our voices be heard? Or will we have a leftist, immoral agenda foisted upon us and our families? I suspect this is indicative of what political and social liberals think about the military. There is an open disdain by the left for traditional values, and no American institution represents those values as consistently as the Armed Forces of America. So the repeal of DADT is motivated by one thing: political expediency. It is a shameless play to the base of a party so far adrift from reason and the will of the American people that it continues to spend our nation into bankruptcy. Now, they want to bankrupt us morally. How better to do that than to force a traditional organization (that, by law, can't openly protest it) to accept what has been viewed as a morally perverse and aberrant behavior for millennia? This is wrong. Legalizing sin will never make it right.

Posted by: Publius76 | September 14, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. Constitution covers every single American, resident and yes members of the military. It is utterly ignorant to think that the constitution does not cover the military. The consitution provides for the military and places restrictions on it. It is a fairly short document; you can read it online. Throughout most of our history we have used conscripts and the draft. The USConstitution was applicable to them and remains applicable to each soldier, airman, navy persons and marine. That is the beauty of the constitution, if you are in the US or under our direct control, the constitution applies. It doesn't apply exactly the same because our forefathers feared the military, and limited the power of the military in its actions against the citizens, including military personnel. Therefore, the constitution requires a legitimate reason for restrictions on military personnel. DADT will ultimately fail to be a legitimate restriction simply because it is not rational. The american psychiatric society decided forty years ago that homosexuals were normal people. It has taken this long for society to catch up with science. PS the word "homosexual" does not appear anywhere in the BIBLE; the word did not exist in hebrew, but is used by some Bible authors as a replacement for words refering to male temple prostitutes. The BIBLE is utterly silent regarding female homosexuality. Ignorance is our greatest enemy far greater than all the Muslim Terrorists in the world.

Posted by: Jack74 | September 14, 2010 2:01 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. Constitution covers every single American, resident and yes members of the military. It is utterly ignorant to think that the constitution does not cover the military. The consitution provides for the military and places restrictions on it. It is a fairly short document; you can read it online. Throughout most of our history we have used conscripts and the draft. The USConstitution was applicable to them and remains applicable to each soldier, airman, navy persons and marine. That is the beauty of the constitution, if you are in the US or under our direct control, the constitution applies. It doesn't apply exactly the same because our forefathers feared the military, and limited the power of the military in its actions against the citizens, including military personnel. Therefore, the constitution requires a legitimate reason for restrictions on military personnel. DADT will ultimately fail to be a legitimate restriction simply because it is not rational. The american psychiatric society decided forty years ago that homosexuals were normal people. It has taken this long for society to catch up with science. PS the word "homosexual" does not appear anywhere in the BIBLE; the word did not exist in hebrew, but is used by some Bible authors as a replacement for words refering to male temple prostitutes. The BIBLE is utterly silent regarding female homosexuality. Ignorance is our greatest enemy far greater than all the Muslim Terrorists in the world.

Posted by: Jack74 | September 14, 2010 2:01 AM | Report abuse

PS My Dad was a Seargeant in the Marines during the Korean war just after Blacks were integrated. At Paris Island, they had a couple of gays and a black guy in their platoon. The gays were never a problem although the most feminate of the two showered alone in the middle of the night. His choice. The black marine was a problem at first reportedly because of differences in personal hygine habits--running water was not present in everyones home at the time and he was unaccustomed to the daily soapy ritual--and would get a little stinky so they basically attacked and bathed him as a group with brushes!, upon orders from their crazy drill sargeant, causing wounds to his body. They got caught, he lied through his teeth and said he fell to keep them from getting in trouble, and all was well with the blacks, hilbilies, gays, bams, etc. (This is one of the fears that the marines have in that they don't want gay marines to get beaten into their platoons. It can be dangerous, and has never been allowed, but it does tighten up the unit cohesiveness when the Marine you just beat up lies in your defense.) PSS The greatest military leader in History was gay; so we know they can fight and lead armies. (Obviously, I am referring to Alexander the Great who almost conquored the entire known world.)

Posted by: Jack74 | September 14, 2010 2:25 AM | Report abuse

mnnshw: There are no constitutional rights when it comes to military service.
________________________________

If you learned that in your constitutional law class, you better ask for a refund.

The military is an arm of the government; as such, it is bound by the constitutional obligations against denying equal protection, infringing personal autonomy, and abridging the freedoms of speech and religion.

The courts give military judgment great deference, but to suggest that the military is somehow above the Constitution is as absurd as it is dangerous.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 14, 2010 6:17 AM | Report abuse

Let the social fundamentalists rage all they want while their right to do so is being protected by GLBT people already in uniform, and their heterosexual counterparts who don't care about this. All any soldier, sailor, and airman wants to know is that they come home after keeping their Nation safe from our enemies. It has been my privilege to know some of our finest military men and women, some of whom are homosexuals, and all they want is to do their duty, serve with integrity, and get home to their loved ones. Citizen soldiers like Capt. Anthony Woods, Sgt. Brian Fricke, and Commander Zoe Dunning; these people stood and served to protect everyones rights, and they are contributing to our society beyond their military service. They are an example to all of us. It is time to stop the pettiness of this argument, and allow the men and women who serve, and who happen to be homosexuals, to do so as equals.

Posted by: bill_delgrosso | September 14, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

There is no Constitutional mandate that the military must take abnormal people into the ranks. That being said, if it becomes law, then it is law. BTW - the military already discriminates against men by not requiring females members to meet the same physical standards as males. Why no outcry of discrimination from libs? Anyone care to answer that?

Posted by: illogicbuster | September 14, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

This is by far the stupidest and most destructive policy change ever foisted on the armed forces.

Unfortunately college has produced a population of brain dead automatons who fail to see the foolishness of placing openly gay men in with strong alpha males.

There is no right to serve in the profession of combat arms. It is unfair to gays that they cannot serve. Fairness should not be the primary question asked, rather the question should be what policies make our military the most lethal.

Those who talk about fairness have no idea about martial affairs. War and battle are the most unfair endeavor men engage in and those that don't know that should become better informed.

In Sebastien Juenger's book "WAR", he states that the reason why the combat soldiers fight so hard is because they love (philos/brotherly) each other. If soldiers have to worry that their philos love will be misinterpreted as erotic love (eros) by their gay counterparts, conflict instead of unit cohesion will become the norm.

The proposed repeal of DADT highlights the classic stage 1 thinking of said proponents. The consequences of this policy change are rarely discussed and if they are discussed it usually is referenced to some simplistic study where the those doing the study are trying to support their own positions.

This will be the last nail in the coffin for death of men in our feminized culture. The military is one of the last institutions that develops men and their character. The irony is that it will be women and children that suffer the most. When men finally give up and go back to being boys, women will finally have their single parent utopia.

Posted by: thucydides1 | September 14, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I am uncomfortable with a gay or bi man showering naked with me in the military. That is sexual harassment. The military doesn't let men shower with women, why are they going to allow men who are attracted to men shower with a bunk full of buff men.

Can I switch barracks and sleep and shower with the women?

Posted by: heysteve | September 14, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who want DADT repealled, I have news for you. The rank and file may have to verbally deal with it...but if the behavior is seen, it will NOT be. Simply put, they will insist on ALL soldiers NOT having public displays of affection on post at ANY time. Heck, even married couples won't be able to even hold hands on a post.

Oh and expect the soldiers to do their best to change while in a shower with a curtain or to shower by themselves whenever possible...or stink until they can.

Oh and expect LOTS of judicial complaints and Article 15s for stupid stuff. And expect lots of IG and EEO complaints as well.

Oh and expect those heterosexuals who are forced to share a room with homosexuals to be very uptight and have a LOT of lost sleep and lost productivity over it.

In all, expect the military efficiency to drop like a rock.

Finally, expect a LARGE loss of soldiers in the military as there will be a lot who will ETS and a lot who will retire early and a lot who will simply NOT join up over this...and don't expect a great number of homosexuals to join the military to make up for it...because there just aren't that many.

These are some of the problems the military was investigating before Reid decided to escalate the vote.

Posted by: ChiefPayne | September 14, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

HeySteve,

I argued with a man who kept saying that this wasn't a big deal and that gays only have sex with other homosexuals.

I told him fine, then let the lesbians stay in the heterosexual men's barracks and the gay men stay in the heterosexual women's barracks - and we'd all get along just fine. Irritated the stuffing out of him. LOL

Posted by: ChiefPayne | September 14, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

ChiefPayne posted: "Irritated the stuffing out of him. LOL"

----------------------------------------
Logic is the biggest irritant to a liberal.

Posted by: illogicbuster | September 14, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

illogicbuster,

Indeed. That's what I've found too.

The simple fact is, DADT is the ONLY thing that allows gays to serve in the military without causing issues.

Do away with DADT and you may as well either just take the gays OUT of the military or do away with the military period as it will not be able to accomplish it's mission anymore (or very inefficiently at best).

Posted by: ChiefPayne | September 14, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

We can't repeal DADT because this act will be the best recruiting tool ever for terrorists in the homophobic Al Queda organization.

We will then have to fight nearly 2 billion Muslims instead of the minority that now support terrorism.

Posted by: thucydides1 | September 14, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

To all those who question my assertions of the constitutionality of military service, please read the below references from the Constitution and the actual law governing DADT:

Copied from the Constitution:

- To raise and support Armies

- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Copied from the DADT law passed by Congress on December 21, 1993:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654
§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

I am not a law student, but I have read the constitution and the law. The Constitution explicitly defers to Congress to make the laws that govern the Armed forces. Until Congress changes the law, the policy cannot change.

Posted by: mnnshw | September 14, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

With the economy totally broken, why is Reid wasting time on a trivial issue? Pass this and the next law you have to pass will be to re-institute the draft because after this you ain't gonna get volunteers!

Posted by: bradford2 | September 14, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I think Harry Reid is on to something here. The surest way to bring back the military draft is for Congress to go ahead and change the law.

Those that are close to or put their 20 years in, will leave the Military, collect their pensions and find another job in the private world of Defense industry contracting. After about 1 or 2 years of the Military being completed decimated and our nation is weakened to the point that we can't fundamentally protect this nation, the military draft will come back and then you'll see the outcry from the same morons that advocated for DADT to be repealed.

I don't even want to go down the road where someday you'll have 'gay' military trainers and/or advisors go to Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing their religous persuasion and abhorrence to homosexuality, upon discovering a US soldier's sexual orientation, they'll frag him/her and leave him/her to the vultures to pick their bones clean.

But, through a liberals eyes, they seem to think that everyone will just 'accept' them for 'who they are'. Good luck with that one.

Posted by: IrishPM1 | September 15, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, gays in the military, etc., the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence in the story, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.

Posted by: roberthagedorn1 | September 15, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the law, whether DADT changes or not, the Army is a values-based organization and one of its values is to treat all people with dignity and respect. The Army currently has all the systems, regulations and policies established to provide for equal opportunity and prevent sexual harassment in any form. The Army aggressively prosecutes violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, including violations of lawful orders issued by proper military authority concerning equal opportunity and sexual harassment.

Posted by: Guyinthe3rdRow | September 15, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

IrishPM1 said:

"I don't even want to go down the road where someday you'll have 'gay' military trainers and/or advisors go to Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing their religous persuasion and abhorrence to homosexuality, upon discovering a US soldier's sexual orientation, they'll frag him/her and leave him/her to the vultures to pick their bones clean."

There are people in Afghanistan who would quite willingly kill any and all "infidels". Perhaps we should refrain from sending any Christian soldiers there too?

Posted by: jbowler | September 16, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

You know... I understand a lot of people's fears... A lot of people within our country have been raised by very closed-minded parents, in a very closed-minded society, and I have vowed on the Constitution to defend their right to be jerks about it. I wonder how they would feel to know that there are already homosexuals and bisexuals in the military and there have been for as long as we've had a military. Your orientation in no way affects your ability to do your job. I'm proof of that. I can still shoot as straight, run as fast and do my job just as well as any heterosexual, and I seriously doubt anyone who has ever been stationed with me would have the slightest idea I was anything otherwise. It has nothing to do with being bisexual. It has everything to do with being a soldier. Every man I serve with is my brother, and every woman my sister. They are FAMILY! Regardless... say what you will about gays in the military. At least there are able men and women ready to enlist to defend the rights of the rest. Remember... while you sleep soundly in your beds there are rough men and women willing to do violence on your behalf. If you are still vehemently against allowing homosexual and bisexual men and women the honor of their service... how about you enlist yourself?

Posted by: USAirman | September 16, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company