Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pentagon instructing recruiters to accept gay applicants

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 8:42 p.m. ET
The Pentagon is instructing military recruiters to accept the applications of gays and lesbians who wish to join the military, but must inform potential recruits that a moratorium on "don't ask, don't tell" could be lifted at any moment.

The guidance issued to military recruits is consistent with the Defense Department's plans to abide by a federal judge's injunction on the 17-year ban on gays in the military. The Pentagon advised senior military leaders late last week not to ask service members or military applicants about their sexual orientation, to treat the rank and file with dignity and respect and maintain good order and discipline.

Despite the guidance to military recruits, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group representing service members impacted by the gay ban, cautioned gays and lesbians against applying for military service while the policy remains in legal limbo.

"The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon," said SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis.

Army Lt. Dan Choi, who was discharged in July for violating the gay ban, reenlisted Tuesday afternoon at a military recruiting station in Times Square in New York.

"It's a little bit complicated, because I was an officer and I want to be enlisted, so they're trying to figure out what that might entail," Choi said in a phone interview from the recruiting office.

Choi interrupted the conversation to speak with recruiters in the office. "This is something that's been a dream of mine to go in, so here we are," he told them. "I just don't want anyone to give me the run around."

Choi expects his application to be processed and approved tomorrow, he said.

Meanwhile, a federal judge declined Tuesday to lift her injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips's decision likely means the Justice Department will ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to stop her moratorium on the gay ban. The government already plans to appeal to the 9th Circuit to overturn Phillips's decision that "don't ask" is unconstitutional.

Phillips said Monday that the government has not proven that her order would harm troops or in any way impede efforts to implement new regulations for the military to deal with openly gay service members, according to an Associated Press reporter who attended the hearing.

The pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans filed suit against the military's gay ban, arguing that it is unconstitutional. Phillips agreed, ruling the law unconstitutional in September and last week ordered a worldwide stop to the Pentagon's enforcement of the 17-year old law.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

By Ed O'Keefe  | October 19, 2010; 3:11 PM ET
Categories:  Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CIA files suit against former spy Ishmael Jones
Next: Right to photograph federal buildings upheld

Comments

About damn time. The Constitution, the document the military is sworn to uphold, demands equal treatment of all citizens.

We should be prosecuting the military officers who enforced DADT for dereliction of duty.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | October 19, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Believe you will need!!!!!!

it's a very good!

come http://0845.com/4pC

Posted by: itkonlyyou331 | October 19, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"About damn time. The Constitution, the document the military is sworn to uphold, demands equal treatment of all citizens."

So sayeth the polygamists, ex-cons, and those who would marry their favorite ewe. So sayeth we all?

Posted by: Lazarus40 | October 19, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

If the military needs a "policy" on homosexuality:
http://gravelle.us/content/out-closet-barracks
...then don't they need heterosexual, bisexual, asexual, hypersexual, transexual, ad infinitum policies as well?

No? Why not? We ARE, after all, seeking uniformity:
http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2798
...in the way we treat one another, aren't we?

NOT creating policies for each and every sexual proclivity is favoritism.

And, as the courts have said, we can't have that...


-jjg

Posted by: jgravelle | October 19, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Jgravelle and Lazarus40, your "comments" are ludicrous. The issue is not sexual orientation, but discrimination. And what the courts have said is that there is no legal basis for barring LGBT personnel from serving in the armed forces. Doing so isn't constitutional, nor does it serve any purpose other than catering to bigotry and fear.

The sooner we repeal DADT and allow all Americans the opportunity to serve their country proudly, the stronger our military, and society will be.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?!

Posted by: DCSteve1 | October 19, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

So what we have here is a law, that nearly all experts believe to be unconstitutional, is to be enforced for the convenience of the government? Perhaps there is something going on behind the scene that would justify such behavior but nothing rational.

DADT was unconstitutional from its beginning and should not stand!

Posted by: RevJDSpears | October 19, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"What about that is so hard for you to understand?!"

What I understand, DCSteve, is that were I still on active duty and responded to the urge to use the barracks or shipboard head in the middle of the night, I would have to wake a straight friend to go with me for fear I might be seen there by a third party alone with a professed gay, who was there coincidentally, and have my reputation the subject of debate from that time on. Now wouldn't that be something, our fighting men going to the rest room in pairs like ladies in a restaurant.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | October 19, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Teabaggers like Lazarus70 like to claim that they support the Constitution. But when the equal justice clause is applied, they get all upset.

Do you think maybe that teabaggers don't like the Constitution at all?

Posted by: bigbrother1 | October 19, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

What I understand, DCSteve, is that were I still on active duty and responded to the urge to use the barracks or shipboard head in the middle of the night, I would have to wake a straight friend to go with me for fear I might be seen there by a third party alone with a professed gay, who was there coincidentally, and have my reputation the subject of debate from that time on. Now wouldn't that be something, our fighting men going to the rest room in pairs like ladies in a restaurant.

Posted by: Lazarus40
------------------------------------------
OMG, you're so right! I walked into Giant they other day and saw a gay guy and immediately fled because, well, then people would think that I'm gay. Then, I walked into the bathroom at work, and there was a Republican colleague. I had to flee from there, or else my other coworkers would think I was a Republican. I'm never going to leave my house ever again!

Posted by: binaryboy | October 19, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

1. Why can't I serve in the military is I have two wives?

2. Why can't an officer date and marry an enlisted person?

3. Why can't I simply decide one day that I don't want to be a soldier and demand to be discharged immediately?

4. Why can't I insult a superior officer? Don't I have a Constitutional right to free speech?

Posted by: InTheMiddle | October 19, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Now let me get this right, Lazarus40. You are willing to put your life on the line fighting for our country, but you are afraid to go to the head lest someone think (erroneously) that you're gay? Do you actually expect anyone to take this argument seriously?

Posted by: GordonCash | October 19, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Only heterosexual men who would rape have fears of being raped by gay men..... Just like female service members who need to cary arms with them to the head because of male hetorsexual rapist soldiers lying in wait for them....The gay soldier boys won't rape you dudes. No every one thinks like a rapist hetrosexula male-get over yourselvels!

Posted by: soccerhead | October 19, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

binaryboy,

by your response you are equating sexual orientation to a belief, that's shocking, because up until this time you would have me believe that gay people are born that way.

...so which is it?

InTheMiddle: Great Response, again, serving in the military is not a right and you will give up constitutional rights.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 19, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

InTheMiddle:

1. Why can't I serve in the military is I have two wives?

2. Why can't an officer date and marry an enlisted person?

3. Why can't I simply decide one day that I don't want to be a soldier and demand to be discharged immediately?

4. Why can't I insult a superior officer? Don't I have a Constitutional right to free speech?
________________________

Because there is a good reason for each of those. The judge here found that the government had not proved that there was a good reason for the anti-gay discrimination. So you should ask:

1. Why can't Jews be banned from the military for being Jewish?

2. Why can't blacks be banned from the military for being black?

3. Why can't Asians be banned from the military for being Asian?

4. Why can't immigratns be banned from the military for not being native-born?

Answer: There's not a constitutionally sufficient reason for any of those bans.

Next!

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Hey Soccerhead,

Twice in my 23 year career I WAS approached by senior officers who were making sexual approaches. Once, late at night in his office.

if you don't think that man on man heat is multiplied in all male units then you are living in dreamland.

And no, I'm a happy heterosexual.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 19, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

binaryboy,

by your response you are equating sexual orientation to a belief, that's shocking, because up until this time you would have me believe that gay people are born that way.

...so which is it?

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos
-------------------------------------------
I wasn't equating being gay with being Republican; rather, I was showing how asinine Lazarus40's response was. His suggestion that being in the same room as a gay person might call his own sexuality into question is akin to saying that my being in the same room with a person of another political belief might call my political beliefs into question. Given that none of my friends have chosen their sexualities, I'm left to believe that being gay, just like being straight, is something a person has no control over.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 19, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

DonnyKerabatsos: serving in the military is not a right and you will give up constitutional rights.
____________________

The theory of the case was not that serving in the military is a right, and the judge did not hold that it was. It's really too bad that you have such an arrogant opinion while simultaneously demonstrating such ignorance about what the legal issue even is.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

DonnyKerabatsos: Twice in my 23 year career I WAS approached by senior officers who were making sexual approaches.
_____________

And you should have reported them, and they should have been disciplined.

Now, tell us, do you support banning all heterosexual men from the military because some of them have raped female service members?

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse


No one requires that a woman say or believe that all men are rapists in order for her to assert a privacy right from all men. Why do we call soldiers homophobes when they assert a privacy right from all gays and lesbians?

Ultimately, the military will need to provide each soldier with his or her own private sleeping and bathing area. Grouping people together can't be done if gays and lesbians are permitted to serve openly, unless they group everyone heterosexual males, heterosexual females, and LGBTs all in the same non-private areas.

Everyone has rights, even heterosexual men.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic: No one requires that a woman say or believe that all men are rapists in order for her to assert a privacy right from all men. Why do we call soldiers homophobes when they assert a privacy right from all gays and lesbians?

Ultimately, the military will need to provide each soldier with his or her own private sleeping and bathing area. Grouping people together can't be done if gays and lesbians are permitted to serve openly, unless they group everyone heterosexual males, heterosexual females, and LGBTs all in the same non-private areas.

Everyone has rights, even heterosexual men.
_______________________

I take it you concede that DADT should be repealed, then. Because DADT doesn't segregate gay men, it tosses them out of the military entirely the second their sexual orientation becomes known. So you don't support the current policy, right?

As for segregation, nowhere else in society, from high school lockerrooms to sports clubs to airport security pat downs, do we segregate gay men from straight men. Their body parts are exactly the same. Sorry, the "privacy" argument is nothing but a cover for bigotry. General Pace already admitted that DADT exists solely because right-wing evangelical Christian bigots in the military hate gays. And guess what? That's not a constitutionally sufficient reason for the ban.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The circular arguments of the homosexual extremists....."I am therefore I am not and I am not therefore I am."

Posted by: Lazarus40 | October 19, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Lazarus40:
The circular arguments of the homosexual extremists....."I am therefore I am not and I am not therefore I am."
___________________

Sorry, but was that supposed to make sense?

The arguments of opponents of equality are very straightforward: "I hate homosexuals because I'm a bigot."

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Firstly, I have nothing against LGBT individuals personally. With that said, I do not think that legal protections should be extended to any persons because of a CHOICE. I will say that the moment it is deemed that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon, I will be right there to support their protections in every way. As far as DADT, there are statutes under the UCMJ that also deal with homosexual issues that will need to be addressed (art 125, sodomy; art 133 conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, etc). It is not as simple as repealing one thing and all is well... IF it is repealed, the service chiefs need to be afforded the appropriate time to do it in a way that will be comprehensive vs piece meal and cause more issues than it fixes.

Posted by: shadeau | October 19, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

uh_huhh,

Our current military is a presumptively heterosexual force. Gays and lesbians aren't permitted to be open with their orientation because that deprives heterosexuals of their privacy rights.

High school locker rooms, sports clubs, and security pat downs are not living areas. Soldiers are forced to sleep, bathe, and dress where the army assigns them, but they do still have some privacy rights. The privacy argument is not a cover for bigotry, unless you believe that a woman who will not shower will a platoon of men is bigoted. Gen. Pace is entitled to his own beliefs, as is the General who used to share the photograph of the demon over Baghdad.

Gays and lesbians do themselves great harm with their extremism and their immaturity. I consider myself fairly moderate on the topic, and I don't appreciate being called a bigot.

The judge should do the right thing and decree that the military must provide private sleeping and bathing areas for each soldier. Halliburton can build it. Congress can add the cost to its deficit.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

shadeau: Firstly, I have nothing against LGBT individuals personally. With that said, I do not think that legal protections should be extended to any persons because of a CHOICE. I will say that the moment it is deemed that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon, I will be right there to support their protections in every way.
_____________

What a bunch of B.S. The folks who study sexual orientation universally disregard the idiotic belief that people "choose" to be gay or straight. The leading theories focus on some combination of genes and prenatal biological influences. Spare me you pretend magnanimity.
_____________

shadeau: As far as DADT, there are statutes under the UCMJ that also deal with homosexual issues that will need to be addressed (art 125, sodomy; art 133 conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, etc).
_________________

Wrong. The UCMJ prohibits sex acts between straights as well as gays, yet somehow it hasn't required the expulsion of all straights from the military--or is it you claim that no straight soldier ever engages in consensual oral sex in violation of the UCMJ?

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It has always struck me as odd that the military, for all of its background checks and insistence on absolute integrity by its troops, would put some segment of its troops in a position to have to lie about who they are, compromise their integrity, in order to be able to serve.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | October 19, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic, I really couldn't care less what you appreciate or don't appreciate.

If you want to pretend that the vehement opposition of the military is all about shower curtains, go ahead and live in that dream world. Peter Pace was the chairman of the joint chiefs, and he made clear what this is all about: evangelical Christians forcing their religion down everyone else's throats--as usual.

As long as high school locker rooms, sports clubs, and security pat downs are not segregated, don't whine to me that the same activities--bathing and dressing--are any different in the military. And your claim that a straight soldier cannot sleep in the same room with a gay solider is nothing but pure bigotry. What, is he going to catch the gay by snoring in the same air?

If you want the Pentagon to put up shower curtains, that's fine with me. But when you start claiming that no straight man should ever have to serve in the same unit or sleep in the same room as a gay man, you're wallowing in pure bigotry. If you don't like it, stop doing it.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The Privacy Act requires DOD to have a Data Integrity Committee with meetings and annual reports about issues involving records within systems of records that DOD keeps and matches. Systems of records kept about military personnel are supposed to be published in the Federal Register with a description of the data collected and how it is used.

Posted by: kay_sieverding | October 19, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse


uh_huhh,

Despite your conduct and ridiculing of my beliefs, I still believe in tolerance for gays and lesbians. But, as demonstrated by the way you are acting, I remain unconvinced that gays and lesbians should be given the legal right to act abusively and offensively towards others in the military.

You seem to have a standard of privacy that doesn't transcend sexual sterotypes. You believe it is bigotry for a heterosexual man to want his privacy from all gays. Yet you failed to address whether women have a right to bunk, bathe, and dress in privacy away from men.

The judge should be bold and courageous. She should decree that the military must build private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each individual soldier and recruit. Halliburton can build it. Congress can add it to its deficit.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic: Oh, how pathetic! Please show me where I said gays and lesbians should "be given a legal right to act abusively and offensively towards others in the military." I believe I said above that any soldier making a sexual advance toward any other soldier should be immediately reported and disciplined.

You apparently believe that existing in a bunk in the same room as a straight soldier is acting "abusively and offensively" toward that soldier. You can claim to be moderate all you want, but you can't conceal that you're wallowing in some very deep-seated homophobic prejudices.

You don't get to decide that you don't want to sleep in the same room as Jews, blacks, or Latinos. And there is no "privacy" rights to shun gay either.

As for your little shower obsession, I think I've been quite clear. When similar facilities throughout the civilian world reflect any recognition of any such "privacy" norm, I'll listen to you whine about it in the military.

What exactly do you plan to do: strap a measuring device to each recruit's penis, show him gay and straight porn, and decide based on your measured response which building he is assigned to sleep in? You seem to imagine that you can identify the gay soldiers on sight. The truth is they are in the barracks now, in the showers now, and in the mess halls now--and some of them always will be, even under your silly segregation regime, because plenty of them aren't going to tell a bigot like you that their gay because you so obviously can't handle the truth.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

what did the gays gain...
they can't act gay in uniform...
that conduct unbecoming clause would be in effect...
and out of unifrom they can do what they want off base...
get that...
off base...
if two gays hold hands while in unifrom, they can be thrown out of the service...
the same would happen if they were of the opposite sex...
same rules have already applied to both...
but since the goverment doesn't recognize same sex marriages...
they can't get a living allowance as if they were a couple...
see...
nothing won...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 19, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins, you're seriously ignorant of how DADT works.

Under DADT, a gay soldier must be completely celibate and single--no dating, no hand-holding, no anything. It applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on-duty as well as off, and on-base as well as off.

That is not remotely required of straight soldiers.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

uh_huhh,

You spew many lively and hate-filled words but I still don't hate gays and lesbians.

Jews, blacks, Latinos, and many other racial and religious minorities have been successfully integrated into the military. They sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as whites.

Women and LGBTs have not been successfully integrated into the military. Women do not sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as men. LGBTs cannot serve openly in the military. Why? Because it deprives heterosexual soldiers of their privacy rights.

Everyone has rights, even heterosexual males.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by liberals to undermine the military. What's perplexing is how much more animated they are about this than getting our troops out of the middle east. No explanation there I geuss besides liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: peterg73 | October 19, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Being in the military is different than civilian life. The rights of individuals are subordinate to the needs of the military. The military cannot function effectively by satisfying the personal agendas of individuals. Judge Phillips has arrogantly brushed aside the law and the needs of the military in favor of the personal agendas of gays. That is not justice. It is advocacy.

Posted by: allamer1 | October 19, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

If only JakeD2 would join this debate. Then we'd have all the current WaPo chat-board gay-hating closet cases close together, shoulder-to-shoulder.

Can't you just see Jake, Lazarus, Blasmaic, and Dwight all huddled together, sweat beading on their foreheads, muscles gleaming? They are striving in their manly way to prove once and for all though they personally have nothing against homosexuals) that homosexual acts are morally wrong, totally unnatural and, no matter how hot and tempting, against God's will.

God has charged these four men with a solemn duty. They must continue to stand erect and face that duty. They must never drop the balls, but rather give freely of their sweat, their effort, their very life fluids in the discharge of that duty.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | October 19, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

allamer1:
Being in the military is different than civilian life. The rights of individuals are subordinate to the needs of the military. The military cannot function effectively by satisfying the personal agendas of individuals.
________________

Exactly. The rights of straight soldiers to insist that their gay colleagues lie about their sexual orientation must be subordinated. Straight soldiers demanding that gay colleagues lie to them represents the ultimate in a petty personal agenda that must be sacrificed in military life--just like racism and anti-Semitism are.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Poor blasmaic. He still can't explain why having a gay man snoring in a bunk in the same room invades his privacy.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand what objection any gay or lesbian person would have to my solution. Every soldier and recruit should have his own or her own private sleeping, bathing, and dressing area.

Why is it wrong to respect each person's right to privacy and right to identity?

The judge can decree that the military build private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each soldier and recruit. Halliburton can built them. Congress can add it to its deficit.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I just like what Barry Goldwater had to say:

"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar."

He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

(See Wikepedia article on Barry Goldwater for sources)

Posted by: AndrewL418 | October 19, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Congress (the sniveling cowards) has again left a vacuum to be filled by a judge with an agenda. I have no real problem with gays. I have a problem with judges making law. The other egregious example is California, where one queer judge overruled the people's will on marriage as expressed by referendum. The "Imperial Judiciary" should concern us all.

Posted by: qoph | October 19, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

First there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. While we are at it why doesn't the judge require that the Americans with Diabilities Act be enforced in the military. BTW in WW2 Asians were not permitted to serve until the formation of the 442nd regiment which served only in the ETO (European Theater of Operations for all you non-military types out there). Immigrants can only serve if they have legal status and BTW are limited in the number of jobs they can hold because of security clearance requirements which require US citizenship. Is it discrimintation for an enlisted person who holds a masters degree to have to take orders from an officer who has a high school diploma(it has happened), the military can and must discriminate to fullfill their basic purpose. It is to kill more of the enemy than they kill of us. To that end unit cohesion and discipline is of utmost importance. It alwsy amazes me that the people who complain loudest about what or how the military does something have never served one day. Seems they are always working on their next deferrment (Vietnam) or look upon the military as a place for losers while they do their thesis on how to change the military. I favor universal service, that at some point in their lives, everyone puts a uniform on and serves, be it on the homefront or in the actual military. A little discipline wouldn't hurt some of these liberal types.

Posted by: hc01 | October 19, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Poor blasmaic. He still can't explain why having a gay man snoring in a bunk in the same room invades his privacy."

------------------

It is a violation of anyone's right to privacy for them to be forced to sleep, bathe, or dress in the same area as a person who could become sexually or romantically attracted to them.

It's wrong to force women to bunk, bathe, and dress with heterosexual male soldiers and we have not done this anywhere. It is likewise wrong to force straight men to bunk, bathe, and dress in the same areas and homosexual soldiers who can become sexually or romantically attracted to them.

I personally can't distinuish between gay and lesbian soldiers and heterosexual soldiers by the way they snore. But if a soldier declares that he is gay, then others have a right to have their privacy secured from him, just as every woman has a right to have her privacy secured from all men.

It's odd to me that proponents of ending DADT talk about integration of Jews into the military and then attack me for religious beliefs that I have never espoused. It serves to remind us that the victims of hate crimes don't have to actually be whatever the attacker hates.

The judge should act with justice and decree that everyone have his own or her own sleeping, bathing, and dressing area. Halliburton can build it. Congress can add it to its deficit. I hope the judge will provide justice for all.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

This MAY have the effect of removing an item that a soldier in a sensitive area might be blackmailed over. Could be a good thing.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 19, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm gay. I served eight years. I have a number of friends who served in each branch of the military. All gay and bisexual men. Most have retired as senior officers or NCOs. What more can I say?

Posted by: runawaytexan | October 19, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

My dad told me that there were gays in the military in WWII, my uncles told me that there were gays in the military in the Korean Conflict, and I know there were gays in the military in Vietnam. The simple truth is that there have always been gays in the military. If you tell the military to write rules to deal with gays in the military, they will. My only concern is that I do not want a judge, but I want our political leaders to actually vote on this issue. My only question is will this judges refusal to issue a stay last or will the 9th or the supreme court actually issue a stay. Finally, the only problem I have with this decision is that judges normally say that some action in unconstitutional and in this case she is telling the federal government to do something. I fear where in the future this may lead.

Posted by: jeffreed | October 19, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

uh-huhh,

He was dimissed from the Army after he got soldiers drunk and molested them. A fine officer he was. He could not control his urges in an all male unit.

//

It comes down to teambuilding and small unit cohesion. Once there is sexual or romantic attraction between two individuals then that teambuilding is lost. You may have coed units in the military, but they are not the ones who will come face to face and kill the enemy. Loyalty should only be for the squad leader.

It is worse if one of the teammembers is vocal about it.

(Thus, DADT)

I realize there are many LBG serving and I've known two that have successfully retired, they were professional and never had to hide their lives from me or their peers. It is NOT a witch hunt here in the military as some liberal extremist would have you believe.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 19, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse


And think of how this scares the Taliban, they won't be worried about water boarding anymore

Posted by: cjfreeman3 | October 19, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The Judge reasoned that the US Military was being denied needed recruits so long as openly gay persons were excluded.

I have now instructed my 5 grandchildren of military age NOT to volunteer for military service, because they will be forced to join the new Sodom & Gomorrah lifestyle. Just let the gays volunteer to get their butts shot off for a change.

Posted by: dave19 | October 19, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It is with great amusement that I read the crazy comments posted by insecure straight guys. The bottom line is that most males - whether gay or straight - are freaks. Many of the most twisted sick puppies I've ever met have been 100% straight.

Now let's get down to business. I want to know if one can aim a gun and pull the trigger. I really don't care what you do behind closed doors.

Posted by: SCOTTSCHMIDTT | October 19, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Of coursee this all about sexual orientation...

Thats what defines "GAY" for chrissake.

And, as we've seen with all the pregnancies, CO firing, and drama, that has run at a continual level since gender integration in 1975, adding yet another supercharged sexual component into the deckplates, and trenche...

There WILL be intractable problems with this.

At a time when the military is fighting two wars.

Posted by: sidishus | October 19, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

point noted for the homos. serve,obey orders and who cares. however ur sexual orientation is not a free pass to hump and bump while on duty as it is a hetro. get over the whining and do ur duty. if the military is not for u get out.

Posted by: pofinpa | October 19, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

anarcho-liberal-tarian ~ The Constitution specifies that it's Congress that makes the rules for the governance of the military.

The Commander in Chief may well tell them where to go, etc. but even he has no power to make rules for governance.

Neither do the judges.

What we have going on here is a coup against Congressional authority. I suspect there'll be quite a reaction against this sort of thing under a new Republican Congress.

I look forward to that old biddy in California being executed as an example to the others to stay out of affairs where they have no authority.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 19, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Activist Judges Should Not Be Making These Decisions!

Posted by: BRIANKRUTTER | October 19, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

If gay men are attracted to men, and gay women are attracted to women, and they will be respectively integrated into barracks with either straight men or women why not just integrate barracks with all of them so that the straight men who are attracted to straight women, and straight women who are attracted to straight men have the same opportunities for relationships as the gay men who are attracted to men and gay women who are attracted to women?

Posted by: ComradeRahcuk | October 19, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

dave19:
I have now instructed my 5 grandchildren of military age NOT to volunteer for military service, because they will be forced to join the new Sodom & Gomorrah lifestyle. Just let the gays volunteer to get their butts shot off for a change.
____________________

LMAO!! Don't worry. If they take after you,
they won't score high enough on the standardized test to even be considered by the military.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

In revoking DADT, what then is the meaning of concept of judging on the content one's character versus the color of one's skin?
How slippery a slope are we one here ?
At what point could a declaration be an act of intimidation ?
Is this process a moral crusade, as was with the civil rights of Black Americans,or mere political accommodation under the false color of morality?

Posted by: peterroach | October 19, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I am astonished at how stupid so many of these comments about gays in the military are. People, every country's armies with whom we serve in Iraq, in Afganistan and on our numerous military bases around the world have openly gay soldiers both male and female. Our troops go to the bathroom with gay British soldiers and have absolutely no problems. This has been going on for decades as every other western democracy has openly gay military personnel. Only this crazy, ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalist American highly vocal minority comes up with these idiotic reason for keeping gays out of the military. God could easily choose a gay man or woman to save us from terrorism. If you find that unlikely read my novel, THE CODE and perhaps you will be enlightened.

Jay Curtis author of THE CODE

Posted by: JayCurtis | October 19, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

What a Catch 22 for military brass. Can't ask or pass judgement on "lifestyle" but are expected to "maintain good order and discipline." The very first time a complaint is taken about a groping in the showers, the brass wkll be accused of discrimination. What a can of worms!

Posted by: IQ168 | October 19, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

DonnyKerabatsos:

If I understand your point, it is that you encountered one military leader who was in the closet and molested soldiers. Therefore, you conclude by some reasoning, that all gay men are sexual predators and all must be thrown out of the military--but only if they say "I am gay." If they don't say "I am gay" then they are not sexual predators and can remain in the military and--as now--nothing will happen.

Sorry but that makes no sense at all.

As for unit cohesion, that pretextual argument has been debunked by every single study to consider it. Sorry, but the facts don't support it. It is nothing but the current excuse.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"DwightCollins, you're seriously ignorant of how DADT works.
Under DADT, a gay soldier must be completely celibate and single--no dating, no hand-holding, no anything. It applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on-duty as well as off, and on-base as well as off.
That is not remotely required of straight soldiers.
Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse"

I can see why you being gay see it as such...
you can't get caught...
you feel denied...
even if DADT isn't in place...
the rest of the UCMJ still is...
or in other words...
don't get caught...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 19, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

We can all only hope that Judge Virginia knows what she is doing.

Hurry November 2nd!

Posted by: pgould1 | October 19, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

pofinpa:

point noted for the homos. serve,obey orders and who cares. however ur sexual orientation is not a free pass to hump and bump while on duty as it is a hetro. get over the whining and do ur duty. if the military is not for u get out.
_______________________

Um, the question is whether the soldier can say, "I am gay," and have a same-sex partner or spouse back home. The issue has never been about getting to "hump and bump while on duty." You're wallowing in prejudice.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

On the question of Don't ask, Don't tell - - I heard the President say last night on the news "This policy will end, it will end on my watch. But I do have a responsibility to follow the regulations; I can't simply ignore laws that are out there." He then went on to explain that Congress had actually passed a law, so only Congress can repeal it; until then he has to defend it.
Hmmm, so that means that he should be enforcing the laws related to Yucca Mountain, doesn't it? After all, Congress passed a law, and he can't simply ignore it..... right?

Posted by: templepa | October 19, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I have no objection to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, provided each soldier has his own or her own private area for sleeping, bathing, and dressing.

We don't require that women bunk and shower with men, and we shouldn't require that heterosexuals bunk and shower with LGBTs.

The judge can order it. Halliburton can build it. Congress can add the cost to their deficit.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"DonnyKerabatsos:
If I understand your point, it is that you encountered one military leader who was in the closet and molested soldiers. Therefore, you conclude by some reasoning, that all gay men are sexual predators and all must be thrown out of the military--but only if they say "I am gay." If they don't say "I am gay" then they are not sexual predators and can remain in the military and--as now--nothing will happen.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all.
As for unit cohesion, that pretextual argument has been debunked by every single study to consider it. Sorry, but the facts don't support it. It is nothing but the current excuse.
Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse"

women think men are dogs and will jump on anything with a skirt...
if it applies to men with women...
it must also apply to men with men...
once approved there will be alot of black eyes in the units...
lots at article 15's and 32's to go around...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 19, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins, I take it your complete lack of response means that you agree that you don't know what you're talking about on DADT.

Now, you also don't know what you're talking about on the UCMJ. As it so happens, the UCMJ applies equally to straights and gays--and, as a result of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), is not applied to private, consensual sexual activity. It is enforced only against prostitution, rape, etc.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 19, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

If the military can't function with openly gay soldiers, as the pro-DADT would have you believe, what is going to happen if we ever have to reinstate the draft? Ask every male citizen if they are straight enough to involuntarily go to a war they don't believe in?
I don't care who had the guts to repeal this ridiculous policy, I'm just glad someone did!!

Posted by: Rosie22 | October 19, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Uh-huhh,

you make no sense, sexual predators (regardless of orientation or if they vocal or not) are dealt with in the military.

Post you proof on unit cohesion if you can find it - but I can tell you from experience how many times we either had to move a male or female member out of a squad or section because of sexual or romantic causes. That is disrutptive, costly and unfair to some careers.

all we are asking is that members remain professional. I don't speak of my sexual orientation in my unit. Nor do I discuss politics and that is what is really behind this movement.

I'd rather serve with a quiet professional (I have) than somebody who is flamboyant and overt with their lifestyle.

The British Army allows their gay soldiers to march in pride parades in full uniform, is that where we are going?

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | October 19, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Just end this insane DADT policy and stop wasting my tax dollars on it.

Today.

Oh, and bring all of our troops home from the two Republican wars of foreign adventure. al-Qaeda hasn't been in Iraq or Afghanistan for five years now.

They still get more than 95 percent of their funding and volunteers from Saudi Arabia, and are primarily found in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia - not any of which are our allies - or ever have been. Unless allies backstab you and plot your death.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 19, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, I raise the question of the Constitution itself removing military governance from the power of the federal judiciary and all these gay blades want to keep talking about their needs for sexual intimacy at every opportunity in every venue.

That's the problem guys ~ you have only one thing on your minds.

And no, straight troops simply don't see it the same way you imagine it to be ~ not even in the British army.

Best you stick to your porno DVDs and visits to the gay bars.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 19, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

No problem with the judges rulings. Now he must now insure that all public bathrooms are coed, all gyms must have communal showers including congress.
And that all sleeping quarters in the military are communal same for universities

Posted by: mandinka2 | October 19, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Hey, what about the rights of crossdressers and hermaphrodites? The leftists should include them all no?

Posted by: IamWright | October 19, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

They also said that when women were allowed in the military that rape and pregnancy wouldn't happen either, both of which have a detrimental effect on morale and cohesion.

I remember when I was in Fort Knox, there was a guy in my platoon that had a very difficult time with stiffies in the shower, as in, he popped one on more than one occassion. It almost got his ass kicked. Fortunately, basic ended before any violence occurred. But, let me tell you, it must have been pretty lonely for him because nobody wanted to associate with the guy with the wild weenie.

Posted by: JoStalin | October 19, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Where will the transgender male that has not yet had surgury be housed?

Posted by: Bulldogsos | October 19, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse


Then when the homos enlist and the Supreme Court throws out the California federal court ruling and rules that Don't Ask Don't Tell is constitutional, the homos will be the first to be discharged.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 19, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Tailhook will never be quite the same after this ruling!

Posted by: dkbain1 | October 19, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse


There is no constitutional right to enlist in the U.S. armed forces. The Supreme Court has ruled this repeatedly in other cases. The Supreme Court also through out a constitutional challenge to DADT law last year.

When the current case goes all the way to the Supreme Court -- and is overturned -- all recruits who told the recruiter they are homosexuals are going to be tossed out later. We shall see.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 19, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The Pentagon has released reports in which one-third of military women say they've been sexually harassed. Furthermore, last year, nearly 1,400 women reported being assaulted and raped by their fellow soldiers, in some cases by their commanding officers. In fact my wife has an acquaintance whose daughter was serving in Iraq and was raped just last week. ALL BY HETEROSEXUAL MALE SOLDIERS.......

Posted by: kschur1 | October 19, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

kschur1, do you believe that gays and lesbians serving openly is going to make things more safe or less safe for women in the military?

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z9qSBx-qnc

watch this!!

Posted by: adrunkinthemidnightchoir | October 19, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I applaud the Pentagon for respecting the Judicial process and implementing an order that most of the Officers, including myself, have reservations about. We are, and will always remain a country governed by laws, not by personal feelings or beliefs.

Posted by: Obamarama1 | October 19, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

bigbrother1:
"Do you think maybe that teabaggers don't like the Constitution at all?"
=====================
I think that to them, the constitution is like the Bible: they like the version they have in their heads, but dislike the version that's actually out there on paper.

Posted by: arensb | October 19, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Soon the U.S. Military, once the finest fighting force in the world, will be just another social program just like Europe. Sad.

Posted by: staterighter | October 19, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Oivey! The West Point Officer's Academy has a traditional song about "the long grey line." Now the common soldier can sing about 'the long gay line' at the military recruiting stations? Hollywood will love it. I can see it now, a remake of "The Fighting 69th" starring a host of American Idol losers who volunteer to go to Afganistan and fight a rear guard battle to save the batallion. Where are the John Waynes when we need them???

Posted by: biteoh | October 19, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse


Dan Choi is an attention seeker. The Marine Corps which exceeds all recruiting goals, is not taking "former enlisted" at this time, gay or straight, especially not a former officer who wants to downgrade to enlisted. If you went to a Marine recruiter as a straight man they would say the same thing: If you wanted to transfer to the Marines you should have stayed on active duty (where it is possible to switch branches. The Marines are taking darned few "29 year old recruits" either.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 19, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Do homosexuals believe in the God of Abraham?

Posted by: numbersch13 | October 19, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The Taliban and al-Qaida must be having a gay old time with this, throwing it in the face of our real fighting men.

Posted by: phvr38 | October 19, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Sexual orientation belongs beyond the realm of outsiders, including the military. It carries far less potential for damage than severely bipolar young men off their meds. These are routinely accepted just to get bonuses. Perhaps that's why more suicides, more murders of innocents, etc.

Posted by: chkpointe | October 19, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

My question is why does it matter? All of us that served in the military have all served with gay soldiers. Who cares what folks do behind closed doors? I'm only worried about what happens behind my own....as long as a soldier can fire his/her weapon and kill the enemy, I don't give a damn.

Posted by: massmedia77 | October 19, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Are the nitwits on here posting about how in some undefined way homosexuals will undermine the military aware that they serve openly in nearly every other modern countries armed forces?

So Lazarus40, when you think of the Israeli Special Forces, is the first thing that enters your mind "what a bunch of wimpy fruits"?

Posted by: rapchat1 | October 19, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Blue Star Mom here....

I know many gays who have served and have retired. One enlisted in the Navy @18 and retired a Lt., served 20 yrs. Funny I have never, ever heard any of them complain about DADT, they served honorably and look back on their service as a great experience and do not regret it one bit.

Now I have a 19 yr. serving, in Combat Arms and an 18 yr. old due to go to MEPS in Nov. I will be seriously advising son #2 to not enlist.

After reading about this decision most of the day on various sites, it makes my skin crawl to read where members of ACTIVIST gay groups will be enlisting to ensure compliance. The last thing I want is for my sons to serve in a military that will now be held hostage by "militant" gays. The demands of the military are stressful enough, especially on the front lines. And don't say they don't exist...most of the gays I know can't stand them...they just want to live their lives....BTW, I live outside of metro Atlanta, mid-town ATL is home to the largest gay population in the country.

Posted by: MizAmerica | October 19, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

rise and fall of the roman empire. allow all conquered people to enter what was considered civilization,perversion was rampant with these perverts and is happening in this country. illegals,criminals, special interests a....... reign. BS religions sprout up and contribute to the downfall of civilization.

Posted by: pofinpa | October 19, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I just hope it doesn't just increase the amount of SID, HIV, etc. cases that have to be handled and paid for by the military. Anyone who has served in the military in the past has served knowingly or unknowingly with those of the abnormal persuasion, so nothing should change in that regards, and as some have already mentioned, heroism is usually an individual trait irregardless of sexual orientation.

Posted by: GordonShumway | October 19, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

This decision will bring an entire different element of gay soldiers into the mix. Not the ones who are mentally tough. Sorry, the military is NOT PC. Combat arms is a giant pissing contest...you are ragged about EVERYTHING from you wife leaving you for another guy to your haircut. It is merciless. Insults fly like you and I say hello....it is hardcore and not for everyone.

This as with all lib ideas will have devastating consequences....just like welfare and the destruction of the black family...

Posted by: MizAmerica | October 19, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

SHAME ON YOU.

So many ugly, hateful comments.

SHAME ON YOU.

You are part of why so many of our gay youth--who are your friends and relatives, your sisters and brothers and nieces and nephews--are being physically attacked, harassed and driven to suicide. You are the reason thugs in the Bronx TORTURED 3 gay men last week--because of the toxic atmosphere nurtured by people like you. Shame on every one of you. Such comments are disgusting. You are NOT an American, and you sure as h*ll aren't a Christian--Jesus preached Love. Especially those of you who seem so obsessed with homosexuality--experience has taught me that the man who makes the biggest fuss about homosexuality is the one hiding it.

uh_huhh, I salute you. You are brave, intelligent and very, very patient. Fight the good fight. Eventually these dinosaurs will die out and our gay brethren will be accepted just like everyone is should be.

Posted by: NYC123 | October 19, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

SHAME ON YOU.

So many ugly, hateful comments.

SHAME ON YOU.

You are part of why so many of our gay youth--who are your friends and relatives, your sisters and brothers and nieces and nephews--are being physically attacked, harassed and driven to suicide. You are the reason thugs in the Bronx TORTURED 3 gay men last week--because of the toxic atmosphere nurtured by people like you. Shame on every one of you. Such comments are disgusting. You are NOT an American, and you sure as h*ll aren't a Christian--Jesus preached Love. Especially those of you who seem so obsessed with homosexuality--experience has taught me that the man who makes the biggest fuss about homosexuality is the one hiding it.

uh_huhh, I salute you. You are brave, intelligent and very, very patient. Fight the good fight. Eventually these dinosaurs will die out and our gay brethren will be accepted just like everyone is should be.

Posted by: NYC123 | October 19, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

NYC123, I have a 19, 18 and 13 yr. old. They probably know more gay people than you do. They have never once been ugly to any. In fact my Sister in law owns a restaurant that is frequented by gays and has mostly gay employees. My 13 yr. old goes to work with her sometimes and helps out. That is the problem with people like you....you assume too much!

Posted by: MizAmerica | October 19, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

What's funny is that 99% of the folks on this forum who are so hell bent on defining what makes up an effective fighting force have never spent day one in the Cub Scouts, much less in the military..

If all of you idea folks want to pick up an M4 and spend a little time overseas, your policy suggestions would carry a bit more weight.

Posted by: kbalderson | October 19, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

the nextime someone brings in the US CONSTITUTION for every menial lawsuit ask yourself and the congress why our national language is not ENGLISH..THE US CONSTITUTION is written and spoken in ENGLISH.

Posted by: SISSD1 | October 19, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Let us make the US Military all gay.See if they are dependable all bythemselves since we know gays are always dependent on heterosexual and they bcome extinct if isolated from the rest.They are like parasites who can't survive by themselves.Give our young real,loyal,honest,brave true all-American men and women soldiers a rest for one year and let the gays fight in Afghanistan and all over the world. That is the only way to prove that GAYS can do THE FIGHTING by themselves. Otherwise the gays will just stay in the back of the frontlines AND MAKE BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING THE JOB.

Posted by: mahalapril | October 19, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by liberals to undermine the military. What's perplexing is how much more animated they are about this than getting our troops out of the middle east. No explanation there I geuss besides liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: peterg73 | October 19, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

________________

As the judge ruled, KEEPING this policy is undermining the military. 70% of Americans report DADT repeal, so maybe you are the one with a mental disorder.

Posted by: emcglaughlin | October 19, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

emcglaughlin....less than 2% of Americans actually serve!!!!! So those 70% have nothing but an opinion.

Posted by: MizAmerica | October 19, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Twice in my 23 year career I WAS approached by senior officers who were making sexual approaches. Once, late at night in his office.

if you don't think that man on man heat is multiplied in all male units then you are living in dreamland.

And no, I'm a happy heterosexual.

*****

Makes me wonder how many times a day female soldiers/marines/airmen/sailors are approached by senior officers, junior officers and their enlisted colleagues. Just saying.

I'm not in the service and never have been, but from where I'm sitting and for what it's worth, I feel like if a person is ready to step up and serve the country, they should have the right.

Posted by: taxworep1 | October 19, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

DonnyKerabatsos said: "I don't speak of my sexual orientation in my unit."

This, if true, would make you absolutely unique in my experience. Almost all my colleagues in the military spoke quite openly of their wives and girlfriends, and a few regularly boasted of their sexual conquests (real or imagined) - occasionally in gory detail.

Posted by: jbowler | October 19, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I want to add something else. I work in the translations industry and in the government sector. I can tell you as fact that Dan Choi, with his credentials, likely security clearance and fluency in Arabic could easily be making $150,000 a year sitting in his bedroom, working his own schedule. This is a infantry veteran who has experienced a combat tour in Iraq during probably the darkest time for our military since Vietnam that is willing to drop from officer to enlisted to get back in the service, not to mention forsake a completely cush job like that. It blows my mind to think they could deny a citizen like that?

Posted by: taxworep1 | October 19, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Gay soldiers raping straight soldiers? Please! It's not going to happen. Of course, there might be some gay soldiers who wouldn't mind being "raped" by straight soldiers. This would be funny if it weren't so mind boggling. Are you telling me that in the year 2010 there are straight people who don't have a clue about gay people? It's usually the ugly straight guy who is "worried" about being approached by someone who's gay. Ha! Ha! In the gay world, as in the straight world, how you look matters. If you're ugly, fellows, forget it.

Posted by: georges2 | October 19, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Wait... Aren't Gay folks like blacks of old only three fifths of a Human.

Whats so funny is while I served in the US Armed Forces under "don't ask, don't tell" Everyone knew who was gay and who wasn't, and I would have taken a bullet for any/all of these guys and I know they would have done the same for me. Sit on the sidelines and judge who is fit for service and who is not, but don't volunteer yourself. There is a word reserved for the likes of you that makes reference to the reproductive anatomy of a woman.

Posted by: waxtraxs | October 19, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

How soon will it be when some heterosexual male soldiers file complaints about 'sexual harassment' by male gays in their Army unit?

Posted by: dave19 | October 19, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Woo Hooo!! There are so many service men and women out there who have done sooo much for our country.
Woo hoo! Lt. Dan Choi!

Posted by: FairEnough | October 19, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

dave19 wrote:
"I have now instructed my 5 grandchildren of military age NOT to volunteer for military service, because they will be forced to join the new Sodom & Gomorrah lifestyle."

and MizAmerica:
"Now I have a 19 yr. serving, in Combat Arms and an 18 yr. old due to go to MEPS in Nov. I will be seriously advising son #2 to not enlist."

I will bet that if I went to the archives of newspapers publishing in 1946, I could find dozens, if not hundreds, of letters to the editor from people swearing they would never let their sons (or grandsons) enlist in a racially integrated military.

Posted by: jbowler | October 19, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

"It's wrong to force women to bunk, bathe, and dress with heterosexual male soldiers and we have not done this anywhere. posted by: blasmaic"

Wanna bet? It's done all the time, during field training exercises.

Served eleven years. The best gay soldier story I know of happened at Vint Hill Farms Station, Vint Hill, Virginia. This was a VERY Highly classified post, full of intelligence collectors and getting fuller. To help with keeping up morale it was decided to print the world's only truly classified newspaper. EVERY article came with its appropriate classification and code word. Vint Hill found a small newspaper press somewhere and needed a press operator. The only press operator the Army could send us was an E=-6 who was openly, flamingly flagrantly gay, but he sure could run that press. He had to be cleared to TOP SECRET CODEWORD Crypto and Compartmented information, and fully briefed so he wouldn't accidentally compromise anything.

QWhen I went back to Viet Nam he was still well out and still printing the world's only classified news paper.

Oh! By the way, some of us feel that it IS that right, as well as the duty, for every American or Resident Alien who isn't disqualified by criminal conviction to serve in the military.

The Dem's DID try to end DADT. because they put that in the military budget, the Republicans filibustered the military budget.

There is no good reason for DADT, or for keeping gays out of the military. It is done because homophobes who haven't the courage to sign up and serve can't abide the thought that gays can, and do sign up and serve.

Congrats, Captain Choi, for doing what you are doing, Enlisting to get back into your nation's service. May the Army come to its senses and give you back your commission, with a promotion. You deserve both.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 19, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Why the howling and ranting? Gays already serve in the military and all the evidence suggests they do a good job.The real issue appears to be those more militant gays who want public validation and acceptance of their deviant lifestyle.That isn't going to happen and no judge can make it happen.Unit cohesion will be affected and the Commandant of the Marine Corps has made that case clearly and succinctly as did [Ret] General Norman Scwartzkopf.DADT has worked well.The arrogance and stupidity of a Judge in revoking DADT before the Pentagon Report is finished is not surprising, but it has to be disheartening to all military,both gay and straight.Let the chaos begin thanks to the clueless Judge Virginia Phillips.

Posted by: bowspray | October 19, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I find it so hilarious that a straight guy thinks every gay guys wants to have sex with him. Get a life for God's sake. You are not all that hot all the time and we don't all want to take you to bed.

Posted by: charlesvilagboy | October 19, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"Dan Choi is an attention seeker. The Marine Corps which exceeds all recruiting goals, is not taking "former enlisted" at this time, gay or straight, especially not a former officer who wants to downgrade to enlisted. If you went to a Marine recruiter as a straight man they would say the same thing: If you wanted to transfer to the Marines you should have stayed on active duty (where it is possible to switch branches. The Marines are taking darned few "29 year old recruits" either. Posted by: screwjob22"

They will take older recruits than that, especially prior service, who speak any number of languages, but when that language is Arabic they will jump through hoops and do everything SHORT of kissing your ... (DADT and all that)

Arabic Linguist is THE most desired civilian acquired skill the military has. That or sixteen months at Monterrey.

Choi is an Arabic Linguist. Discharging him cost the services of a man who cost the Army something like $100k to train, and then the value of his years working as an Arabic linguist. It isn't even possible to put a price tag on his experience.

But he is going back to his Army and (in all probability) going into one of the most mentally destructive MOS's in the service. Knowingly and willingly.

He is running toward the shooting, when any sensible person would run away.

My kind of gay.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 19, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Equality means "don't ask".

Posted by: logicprevails | October 19, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

======== Website: Http://www.shoescloth.com =====

Hello! Let's dress it! Tell you a good place to shop
Fashion, avant-garde, personality, sexy, mature and you go from here!

Jordan shoes
Brand Jersey
Clothing and jeans
Hats and scarves
Bags and purses
Brand belt
Brand glasses
Brand watches

======== Website: Http://www.shoescloth.com =====

Posted by: buhuohuia | October 19, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

"It's wrong to force women to bunk, bathe, and dress with heterosexual male soldiers and we have not done this anywhere. posted by: blasmaic"

Wanna bet? It's done all the time, during field training exercises.

--------------------

Male and female soldiers shower naked together and have full view of each other's naked bodies. That's what you're saying?

I don't mind being in the minority on this topic, because there are many valid points that have been neglected during the debate.

It seems every time I voice my concerns over this I receive harmful, ridiculing comments about being bigoted or homophobic. I am neither of these things. And when I say I don't like being called bigoted or homophobic, there is unfailingly someone who announces they don't care how I feel.

There are numerous gays and lesbians in the military today who are serving honorably. But they are serving in a presumptuously heterosexual military under the policy of DADT.

We do not require a woman to say or believe that all men are rapists in order for her to assert a privacy right from all men. Why do we call a man homophobic if he asserts a privacy right from all gays?

The same arguments used against men who assert a privacy right from gays would be considered blantantly misogynitic if applied to women. Can you imagine telling a woman to shower naked with men because men aren't interested in her ugly body? Or telling her that she's bigoted for worrying about her personal safety?

I believed that DADT was a good step forward when it was made law in 1993. I continue to be tolerant of gays and lesbians, but it seems ever more frequent that gays and lesbians act rude and intentionally harmful to others, including me.

I can only say how happy I am that I will never be in the military, unless China invades San Diego and I am conscripted.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 19, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

@ bigbrother1

"Teabaggers like Lazarus70 like to claim that they support the Constitution. But when the equal justice clause is applied, they get all upset.

Do you think maybe that teabaggers don't like the Constitution at all?"

Obama like other liberals like to claim that they support the Constitution. But when the equal justice clause is applied, they get all upset.

Do you think maybe that Obama doesn't like the Constitution at all?

It is, afterall, a group of republicans who brought the lawsuit which initiated the ban by the federal judge, and Obama and his administration fighting hard to have it reinstated.

I won't claim that all republicans are as open minded towards homosexuality as log cabin republicans, but it's clear that Obama and his administration is no better than those against whom you rail.

Posted by: clwilla | October 20, 2010 2:13 AM | Report abuse

"NYC123, I have a 19, 18 and 13 yr. old. They probably know more gay people than you do. They have never once been ugly to any. In fact my Sister in law owns a restaurant that is frequented by gays and has mostly gay employees. My 13 yr. old goes to work with her sometimes and helps out. That is the problem with people like you....you assume too much!"

The only reason you took this personally (I certainly didn't single you out) is because you know it speaks to you. If you stigmatize gay people in any way, YOU are part of the problem, and you help create an atmosphere in which gay people are persecuted in this country and in which our gay youth are compelled to kill themselves. I say this as a Christian who is from a family with a STRONG military tradition--2 brothers, father, grandfather, great-uncle. None of them have a problem with anyone who is fit and willing to serve--none of them care in the slightest about DADT. Your fears are simply wrong, and you in fact are part of the problem.

Shame on you.

Posted by: NYC123 | October 20, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

pvhr38 wrote: "The Taliban and al-Qaida must be having a gay old time with this, throwing it in the face of our real fighting men."
____________________

Then let the "real fighting men" join the Taliban.

Posted by: Manwolf | October 20, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company