Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Are hopes dimming on repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'?

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 4:34 p.m. ET
Efforts to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy this year could be in jeopardy as top senators are discussing removing language repealing the ban from the annual Defense authorization bill.

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman and ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are exploring ways to introduce a revised version of the bill that could be debated and approved in two to three days, according to several sources familiar with the matter.

Other sources cautioned that negotiations are ongoing and that a final decision should be known before the Senate meets for its lame-duck session. McCain's attempts to remove repeal provisions should be expected after Republican scored major election gains, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

Levin's office did not return requests for comment, but a McCain spokeswoman confirmed the two are talking about changing the current defense bill.

"Among other concerns, the senator remains opposed to the inclusion of the provision repealing the 'don't Ask, don't tell' law," said McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan.

The authorization measure failed a test vote in September that would have allowed the Senate to proceed to debate. Republicans unanimously voted against moving forward after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) included an immigration reform amendment to the bill and prohibited Republicans from adding other amendments.

Reid strongly supports repealing the measure this year and considers McCain's continued opposition unfortunate, said spokesman Jim Manley. "He, of course, can't do it alone. The Senator needs Republicans to at least agree to have a debate on this issue -- a debate he firmly believes the Senate should have."

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said there is still "ample time" to pass a defense bill that repeals "don't ask, don't tell" before the end of this year. Any talk of a watered-down defense bill, "is unacceptable and offensive to the gay and lesbian service members who risk their lives every day," Sarvis said.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a group strongly opposed to ending the ban, said in an e-mail: "There is absolutely no reason to assign priority to legislation that would do harm to the All-Volunteer Force, just to help President Obama to deliver on his political campaign promises. If President Obama really wants to concentrate on more important matters, such as the economy, he should do the nation a favor and let the losing gays-in-the-military cause go."

Civilian and uniformed Pentagon leaders repeated their support on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" this weekend. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he wants Congress to repeal the gay ban by the end of the year, but hedged a bit by suggesting it might not happen.

"I would like to see the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' but I'm not sure what the prospects for that are, and we'll just have to see," Gates told reporters traveling with him to Australia. The defense secretary said lawmakers should wait to vote on repeal until after Dec. 1, when a Pentagon report on how the military would end the gay ban is due to Obama.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, who opposes ending the ban, said in a conversation this weekend with reporters in San Diego: "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness."

Repealing the ban could have unique consequences and risks for the Marine Corps, Amos said. "I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk," he said. Amos first signaled opposition to repeal during his Senate confirmation hearing in September.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: Federal Eye coverage of the "don't ask, don't tell" debate

By Ed O'Keefe  | November 8, 2010; 9:06 AM ET
Categories:  Congress, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Federal worker cost-cutting finalists announced
Next: Lights out at the Commerce Department

Comments

Your slant is reavealed by your headline. How about "Hopes rising on continuation of 'don't ask, don't tell'?"

Posted by: dmm1 | November 8, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Fire Amos!!

Posted by: 10bestfan | November 8, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

On the morning of Wednesday November 5, 2012, Obama will look back on his failure to end this homophobic policy and he will realize that by throwing one of his most loyal constituencies under the bus, that he ensured he would be a failed one term president. Don't let the door hit you in the ass mr. president.

Posted by: dem4life1 | November 8, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

General Amos clearly needs to brush up on the meaning of the term "chain of command." The President, the Sec. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all repeatedly called for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Last time I checked, that constituted an order. If the general is unable or unwilling to respect and implement that directive, then he should resign immediately. He will then be free to defend the current law as loudly as he wishes.

Of course, so long as Republicans persist in blocking repeal, this is academic, alas.

Posted by: DCSteve1 | November 8, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Ed, you clearly are obsessed with this issue. I think the best way to channel your energies would be to enlist publicly and see what they do with you. Bring the reporters and the tv cameras to the recruiting station and declare your intent to enlist.

It's called civil disobedience and it's accomplished far more in this world than blogging.

Posted by: getjiggly1 | November 8, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The gay and lesbian activists love to oversell what is possible and then stand back and watch the rank-and-file self-immolate. It is one of the peculiarities of gay and lesbian culture, likely borne of the self-hatred they learn from "normal" society.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

It took the courts to integrate our schools, it will take the courts to integrate our military. The constitutional law professor and CINC lacks the courage and the conviction to do it himself.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | November 8, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Our current wars and the next ones are an opportunity for the Marine General and those who oppose allowing gay men and women to serve and put their lives on the line , to also oppose allowing the military troops who fight alongside us and are gay. Israel, England, Australia, etc. are all nations who support our troops with the gay military members.
I don't recall ever in my 27 years of working for the Army, of any incident where a gay soldier caused a sexual problem for a non-gay soldier. However, we have all read and known of incidents where soldiers were beaten to death by non-gay soldiers who "thought" the guy was gay.
Gay men and women are only different from the rest of us in the way they want to have sex. Other than that they are the same blood and bone we all share. It is hypocrisy that those who fear gay Americans willingly allow and want our allies gay troops alongside us in battle.
I listened to a gay Air Force pilot with 18 years of service and who has flown the most military missions in these two recent wars, forced out because he professed to being gay. His military colleagues were in favor of him and sad that he had to leave. Some thanks for all of his dangerous missions, huh?

Posted by: papafritz571 | November 8, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Our current wars and the next ones are an opportunity for the Marine General and those who oppose allowing gay men and women to serve and put their lives on the line , to also oppose allowing the military troops who fight alongside us and are gay. Israel, England, Australia, etc. are all nations who support our troops with the gay military members.
I don't recall ever in my 27 years of working for the Army, of any incident where a gay soldier caused a sexual problem for a non-gay soldier. However, we have all read and known of incidents where soldiers were beaten to death by non-gay soldiers who "thought" the guy was gay.
Gay men and women are only different from the rest of us in the way they want to have sex. Other than that they are the same blood and bone we all share. It is hypocrisy that those who fear gay Americans willingly allow and want our allies gay troops alongside us in battle.
I listened to a gay Air Force pilot with 18 years of service and who has flown the most military missions in these two recent wars, forced out because he professed to being gay. His military colleagues were in favor of him and sad that he had to leave. Some thanks for all of his dangerous missions, huh?

Posted by: papafritz571 | November 8, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

It is rediculous that the US is dragging it's feet on this matter. Clinton should have repealed the ban on gays in the military back when he had the chance. We didn't go through all this hemming and hawing when Truman intergrated the armed forces.

Posted by: billy_z | November 8, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Every time I read a WaPo article about gay civil rights, I always see a comment from the user named "blasmaic".

This person spends so much time expressing his hatred of gay people, it's nothing short of mind-boggling. It's got to be a full-time job, to spend so much time hating people.

And the theories and criticisms he makes about gay people are so wild, so incredibly bizarre, it makes me wonder what his real motivation is for making these comments.

I would be willing to bet there's more going on here than meets the eye.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Even after the Sec of Defense repeated his request to have this odious policy repealed, McCain is still recanting his promise to abide by the Pentagon's direction.

Over 75% of Americans oppose this policy, and yet Republicans dig in their heels to keep the government openly discriminating against gays, in direct violation of the logic of Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

When DoD is found to have violated the 14th Amendment against gay Americans, the rationale behind Lawrence, it will owe billions in back pay and punitive damages. Sec. Gates understands this and wants Congress to solve the problem before the courts do. The Congressional solution would be much cheaper, but "Country First" McCain doesn't care.

Posted by: AxelDC | November 8, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse


Every time I read a WaPo article about gay civil rights, I always see a comment from the user named "blasmaic".

This person spends so much time expressing his hatred of gay people, it's nothing short of mind-boggling. It's got to be a full-time job, to spend so much time hating people.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 10:43 AM
______________________________________

My boyfriend and I had sex with blasmaic, trust me, he has serious issues. I would bet that it has a lot to do with his microscopic hoo hoo.

Posted by: dem4life1 | November 8, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

popkultur, it ain't hatred.

If you have some observation about the issue, go ahead and make it. I won't call you insane or bigoted or heterophobic.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

DCSteve1,

Unlike you DCSteve, I think Gen Amos is well versed not only in the chain of command, but in the combat requirements of the Marine Corps. Nowhere in this or any of Gen Amos's statements on this issue does he refuse to obey the orders of the President or the Secretary of Defense. What he has done even before being sworn in as the Commandant was to give his opinion and state that he would, if ordered obey as required by his oath. Like you he has an opinion, and my guess is his is much better informed than yours. I would also guess that the Secretary of Defense asked Gen Amos this very question before recommending the General to the President. Something you apparently either did not think of or believe happened. I would also think, that if the Secretary of Defense was unhappy with the General’s comments, he would have let the Secretary of the Navy direct the General to cease his comments or called him himself. I'm sure he has the General's mobile number.
Since you are obviously not a Veteran Marine or combat Veteran all you have is a very, very uninformed opinion of the military in general and the Marine Corps specifically. The military exists to fight and win wars. Not provide a position for social experimentation. When the country thinks the military is ready to embrace openly service gays and lesbians then believe me it will direct them accordingly. Their combat effectiveness should not be compromised too soon with a politically motivated edict.
Something else I would recommend you do. Read the Constitution. Nowhere does it guarantee EVERYONE the right to serve. This is not “Starship Troopers” where everyone is given a job in the military regardless.


Posted by: cclark4 | November 8, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

DADT should be done away with, but it was suicidally dumb to front load its repeal during an election.

Justice isn't usually popular - and it will be less popular with Bachmann et all shilling for the faux moral majority creeps

Posted by: practica1 | November 8, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Why not let the military complete it's study and make recommendations?

The pre-election court rulings were just politicizing an issue that already has a path to a solution.

Posted by: postfan1 | November 8, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Funny how Amos claims gays in the military will lead to breakdown of discipline. Yet he's got no problem with breaking ranks with all his colleagues and ignoring orders from superiors to not comment on this in public.

And his stated rationale, saying that Marines bunk together so therefore gays can't serve is ludicrous.

Nearly every roommate I've had has been straight, and we never had a single problem.

Young guys of today are far less homophobic than this older-generation 'leader' is.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 8, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

might want to check out article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution. Which for those who can't find a copy reads:
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".
Note that this is a power of Congress, not the courts, not the President, but Congress. If Congress wishes to change it, so be it, but I think the courts and the President unless they are part of the Congress at the same time (which is a no-no) should keep their noses out of it. Opinions, yes, but making decisions, no

Posted by: hc01 | November 8, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

McCain proved to America that he was senile two years ago when his little head chose Palin as a running mate. He shouldn't be making decisions that involve anything more than finger paints and safety scissors.

Posted by: pnwmainah1 | November 8, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

hey dem4life, do you really think the rethuglicans are going to repeal DADT or that any other dem will have enough moxy to defeat a sitting prez in the next primaries? You got to dance with the you brought to the prom. I'll admit Obama has not done all that was promised, but he has faced some stiff opposition while trying to juggle a struggling economy and two wars left to him by his precedessor. If Congress can't decide, let the court ruling stand.

Posted by: rocketman5 | November 8, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Obama's cowardice and hypocrisy on Don't Ask Don't Tell will do more than ensure he is a one-term president. This is a disaster that will fracture the progressive movement for a generation. The gay community and much of the larger progressive movement will not forgive him for reneging on this important demand of decent-minded America when he had the ball in hand. Failure will be his fault, not the Senate's fault.

The gay community will not be with him in 2012. I actually worked for the Democratic Party and I will have a very hard time personally forgiving him for this, and it's difficult to imagine myself making phone calls or walking precincts for him in 2012. Win or lose, the Black community will resent the gay community for not being there for Obama. Relations between the two communities are bad enough as it is, and this will make enemies of people who should be progressive friends for a generation. A fractured base can't fight a unified opponent, and support for the Democratic Party will drop.

I'm angry, and I'm angry *that* I'm angry. A progressive like me should not be angry at this president. But he has kicked gay Americans and fair-minded Americans in the eye, gratuitously, and I don't see how to get over that.

Obama has personally unleashed a political disaster that will preoccupy the progressive movement with infighting until the day 30, 40, 50 years from now when DADT is finally repealed. Some community organizer he is.

Posted by: jdsher00 | November 8, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse


My boyfriend and I had sex with blasmaic, trust me, he has serious issues. I would bet that it has a lot to do with his microscopic hoo hoo.

Posted by: dem4life1 | November 8, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

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

That's all they have.

Hate and ridicule.

I'm all for tolerance and equality, but I won't empower hate and ridicule.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

In this Washington Post Federal Page article today, Marine commandant: 'Don't ask' should not be overturned now, the new Commandant, Gen Amos, asserts: Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell (DADT) “repeal may have unique consequences for the Marine.” and "There is nothing more intimate … when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men - laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers. … I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, its combat effectiveness."

As a Soldier for 30 years going from enlisted man living in a squad bay to squad leader as a sergeant and commanding units from 2LT (earning a Combat Infantryman Badge) to COL, I fully concur with Gen Amos’ reticence to abandon DADT. What I reject is there is anything “unique” about a Marine Infantryman. Since World War II, the Maine Corps has become another, abet smaller, ground army and their performance has been identical to that of regular Army Infantry units in every conflict. In his definitive account of the Korean War, The Forgotten War, the author Clay Blair proves this beyond any doubt for Korea and for all its hype, the 8th Air Force alone in WWII sustained more KIA (27,000) than the entire Marine Corps.

Just to set the record straight about our present conflicts, let’s consider who is doing a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Every service member’s life is precious so I wouldn't diminish the death of a single one but as of today, reported US losses in Operation Enduring Freedom have totaled 1358; 951 Soldiers, 273 Marines, 66 Sailors and 68 Airmen. Last week the Pentagon released the names of 8 service members killed there, seven Soldiers and one Marine.

Lest anyone thinks the Marines are devoting their attention to Iraq, let’s dispel that myth also. There are very few Marines left there. Since the first Operation Iraqi Freedom causality in Mar 2003, we have suffered 4425 losses; 3240 Soldiers, 1028 Marine, 102 Sailors, 54 Airmen and one Coast Guardsmen. In the past year only one Marine has died in Iraq while 61 Soldiers have been killed there.

Although Soldiers have sustained a disproportionate share of the losses in both our current conflicts, the Marines have successfully garnered a disproportionate share of the press coverage so that most citizens erroneously believe it’s the Marine Corps that’s been leading the charge in these wars. In truth, it’s been the Army doing the disproportionate share of the fighting and dying for this country in these two wars. Don’t get me wrong, I am delighted to see that within the past year the Marines have decided to rejoin the fight in Afghanistan after having been "missing in action" for the past several years and we Soldiers welcome their help – finally.

If you want to know how I really feel about this, check out my Blog at: http://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/

Posted by: A-COL | November 8, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

DADT should be done away with, but it was suicidally dumb to front load its repeal during an election.

Justice isn't usually popular - and it will be less popular with Bachmann et all shilling for the faux moral majority creeps

Posted by: practica1 | November 8, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

That's all they have.

Hate and ridicule.

I'm all for tolerance and equality, but I won't empower hate and ridicule.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 11:45 AM |

Actually, no. We also have the 5th and 14th amendments, in particular the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the state and federal governments to treat gay people equally under law. I'm sure you're a huge fan of the Constitution, so you're probably already aware that discriminatory laws are not only unconstitutional, but un-American as well.

I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but based on your bizarre and totally specious theories about the "gay lifestyle", I highly doubt you're in favor of anything resembling freedom or equality. Unless someone else has logged in under your username.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Gays who vote Republican because they believe that Obama has not lived up to his promises re DADT and ENDA are being very stupid. It is the Senate Republicans who are blocking these pieces of legislation. Where are the most moderate members of the Senate Republicans? They are assisting McConnell, Kyl and McCain in blocking these pieces of legislation--not to mention blocking Obama's judicial appointees who might be supportive of overturning such discriminatory legislation.

Posted by: JohnnyU2Berry | November 8, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

This mess is unbelievable. Anyone who cannot see the absurdity and injustice of DADT really isn't qualified for political office or command, IMO.

"You may serve your country with courage, honor, and integrity, but only if you are willing to lie about who you are and the existence of the person you love most." My goodness.

I'm starting to care less and less if Obama is a one term president, and more and more about whether he has the courage to accomplish the things we elected him to do. Now. Frankly, if DADT is repealed, and gay service members reveal that they have same sex spouses and partners, the GOP won't have much recourse. To order them to stop talking about it after the disclosures would be absurd. Kicking them all out would subject the government to huge lawsuits, as they would have been fired for explicitly permitted behavior.

Posted by: carlaclaws | November 8, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob Obama is running out of generals to fire.

The prior Commandant of the Marine Corps was against repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and that Barry the inept bungler was giving sustenance to the Taliban. His replacement General Amos is also against repealing DADT.

All four joint chiefs of staff oppose repeal.

Silly Dims you could not get this done back when you had 60 senators. You could not get it done when you had 59 senators. Now you have 58 senators for the lame duck session; in the next Congress you will only have 53 senators. It is not going to happen least of all in a lame duck session.


Posted by: screwjob22 | November 8, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to withdraw the DOJ court case for appeals and let DADT die in the courts.

Posted by: maritza1 | November 8, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I believe, on principle, that homosexuals and lesbians (the term "gay" is not in my vocabulary, except in music and poetry: our hearts were young and....) should not sleep in the same barracks and watch members of the "opposite" sex undress. See?
I also believe that men should marry women. Why do my beliefs make me the object of hatred?
I believe.
And I am in the majority.

Posted by: qoph | November 8, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Another one of the funny things about U.S. politics. The Republican Party will block action and the Gay community will blame the Democrats. And so it goes.

Posted by: Provincial | November 8, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse


Barry the inept bungler cannot let it die in the courts since a president's Constitutional duty is to uphold the law. The Supreme Court will toss out this challenge to DADT. The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to raise & regulate an army. Congress passed DADT, only Congress can repeal it. Good luck with that, Dims.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 8, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Actually, no. We also have the 5th and 14th amendments, in particular the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the state and federal governments to treat gay people equally under law. I'm sure you're a huge fan of the Constitution, so you're probably already aware that discriminatory laws are not only unconstitutional, but un-American as well.

I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but based on your bizarre and totally specious theories about the "gay lifestyle", I highly doubt you're in favor of anything resembling freedom or equality. Unless someone else has logged in under your username.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

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

Your belief that the 5th and 14th amendments apply to gays is your mistake. They, and all the other amendents and articles of the Constitution, apply to all U.S. persons.

Why do you reach for such hateful and derogatory conclusions about me as a person? Is this how you persuade others? Or is it the objective of the gay and lesbian community to bully and ridicule into silence anyone who voices an opinion that they have never heard before or with whom they disagree?

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Really this is nothing diffrent than civil rights and womens rights movement. Anthony Kisley wrote a poem called We All Bleed Red. I know he wrote that poem about race, but in my eyes he wrote that poem about everyone. Civil Rights was fought and conqured. Women's rights the same thing. Now we are fighting for the rights for gays. In my eyes we are fighting and we will conqure

Posted by: iccc_12 | November 8, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Really this is nothing diffrent than civil rights and womens rights movement. Anthony Kisley wrote a poem called We All Bleed Red. I know he wrote that poem about race, but in my eyes he wrote that poem about everyone. Civil Rights was fought and conqured. Women's Rights was also the same. Now we are fighting rights for gays. We are fighting and in my eyes will conqure eventually.

Posted by: iccc_12 | November 8, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I think brining the 5th and 14th amendments into the DADT argument is specious. If the equal protection clause were fully applied as you seem to think it should be then the front line trenches should be wheelchair accessable so that the Americans with Disabilities Act can be implemented.

Posted by: hc01 | November 8, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't they install gaydar stations at the front military gates?

Posted by: WmLaney | November 8, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is all politics. Other considerations aside, the repeal requires political favors by the Obama Democrats. Even Gates says the Obama White House must repeal before Republicans are the majority in the House.

The politics is those liberal left wings Democrats want Gay support and a victory for the civil liberties extremist. Political interests override practical considerations as expressed by U.S. military commanders.

Republicans will win support from the American voters if they take an objective stand on the consequences of gays serving openly in the military and the opinions of the military should be given the weight of a deciding factor, not Obama politics.

Posted by: klausdmk | November 8, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is all politics. Other considerations aside, the repeal requires political favors by the Obama Democrats. Even Gates says the Obama White House must repeal before Republicans are the majority in the House.

The politics is those liberal left wings Democrats want Gay support and a victory for the civil liberties extremist. Political interests override practical considerations as expressed by U.S. military commanders.

Republicans will win support from the American voters if they take an objective stand on the consequences of gays serving openly in the military and the opinions of the military should be given the weight of a deciding factor, not Obama politics.

Posted by: klausdmk | November 8, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes, if you have read the statute, signed into law by Bill Clinton.
.
Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 – § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654). § 654. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALS 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.
.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
.
.

Posted by: BillDuff | November 8, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Both Gates and Obama are in a real bind. Amos is the newest Commandant and thus his views were known before he was confirmed. Now the choice is clear. Fire Amos and the overall Obama gay agenda is confirmed. In that Obama never served, never will serve nor will the next SecDef, Franks the desire to destroy the American military on social grounds is being set up. If the military is forced into having gays then put'em in the Air Force or the Navy. Maybe the Chairmen of the JCs, the 'spinless' Mullen, will have tohave under his direction.

Posted by: KBlit | November 8, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I guess I don't understand this issue. What is it that gays want from this repeal? Do they want to tell their fellow military their sexual preference? Do they want to dress in a particular way? Do they want the right to have sex with their roommates? I suspect some of the roommates who are not gay may welcome that release. But I don't get the point. The gay pride parades seem to be counter productive with the crazy dress. Do they want the right to behave in that way? I do not wish to be asked my sexual preference as I don't feel it is anyone's business. Maybe I am a homophobe as gays seem to call most who are not gay.

Posted by: davidb529 | November 8, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Harry should put it in The Dream Act.
Then get back to military discipline.

CIB RVN '70

Posted by: BluePelican | November 8, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

papafritz571- Re: pilot who "professed to be gay" why did he "come out"?
Do your job and shut up about your sexual orientation"

Posted by: lyn3 | November 8, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The constitution gives congress the sole authority to declare WAR too - and that has been ignored (and litigated) during every war starting with Vietnam. The President as Commander In Chief clearly has the authority to end DADT himself by executive order if he wants to. Truman ended the separate treatment of Blacks. It's time for Obama to "Man UP" and just do it!

Posted by: sstelepeo | November 8, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Which of these old macho clowns is afraid of a gay guy. McCain shows more and more each day that he is less and less of the hero he is credited with being. These service members would give their lives tomorrow and are just as brave as any drunk straight guy or gal and these politicians and "old homophobes" are afraid of change. If they cannot deal with the real world, they should get on their bus and go back to the rest home. Discrimination was supposed to end back in 1964. But then, McCain and the other homophobes don't view everyone the same, cause you ain't like me.

Posted by: ronjeske | November 8, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I guess I don't understand this issue.

Posted by: davidb529 | November 8, 2010 2:29 PM

You are ABSOLUTELY correct.

Congratulations! Now that you've completed step one, take a deep breath, and get ready to take another step toward understanding. Do some research. Educate yourself about the issue. Take some initiative.

http://www.sldn.org/

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

papafritz571- Re: pilot who "professed to be gay" why did he "come out"?
Do your job and shut up about your sexual orientation"

---

Col. Fehrenbach did NOT come out. He and probably the overwhelming majority of others were outed by others, often for spite and often in complete contempt for the "Don't Ask" part of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, typically after many years of exemplary service.

People seeking the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell are simply seeking the same rights to serve our nation that other people have, under the same conditions that apply to straight people. No more, but definitely no less.

Posted by: edallan | November 8, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

It only makes sense to prevent the liberals from imposing their gay agenda on the US military. Some comments reflect their selfish motives on here such as the idea that the military is comprised of factions of our population such as the gay contingent and each faction should be pampered independently based on their political/sexual preference sway.

Nonsense. The military is the only institution established solely to defend our nation; it is not a melting pot of individuals each with their own agenda. Militaries could not function that way.

Thank goodness the new Commandant of the USMC has the courage to put the issue in focus: It is a matter of our military in combat and the preference is not letting gays serve openly. 'Don't ask, don't tell' works effectively. All gays have to do is to obey rules of conduct. If they don't, they're gone. Simple.

Now, at a time when our military is as heavily engaged as it has been for more
than forty years, at a time when individual troops are ordered to repeated
deployments to the war zones, now in a time of military uncertainty and maximum
commitment, is the wrong time for our politicians to advocate for a social
engineering experiment by endorsing an end to the current don't ask, don't tell
policy.

Neither the president nor an overwhelming preponderance of those in Congress
have served a single day in our country's military. For them now to pander to a
vocal minority seeking a liberal interpretation of society's rules is disturbing and quite revealing as to the total lack of any consideration of the residual effects of their actions. To politicize our military in a time of war is as incredibly contemptible as it is indisputably ignorant of the military as an institution, a separate and distinct body tasked with the most crucial tasks of
defending our nation in a time of war.

To our politicians I say: Tinker with the civilian world if you must; do not
impose your liberal agenda on America's military for the purpose of vote
gathering.

Are there gays in our military? Certainly and always has been. "Don't ask, don't
tell!"

You can read my complete article here:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5815772/dont_ask_dont_tell_and_the_foll
y_of.html?cat=9

Posted by: denniscopson | November 8, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

People seeking the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell are simply seeking the same rights to serve our nation that other people have, under the same conditions that apply to straight people. No more, but definitely no less.

Posted by: edallan | November 8, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

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

Soldiers who seek a repeal of DADT want the right to be in areas where people they could become sexually or romantically attracted to sleep, bathe, and dress.

It's illegal for the military or any employer to approve that.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Replying to:

CCClark4: Unlike you DCSteve, I think Gen Amos is well versed not only in the chain of command, but in the combat requirements of the Marine Corps. Nowhere in this or any of Gen Amos's statements on this issue does he refuse to obey the orders of the President or the Secretary of Defense. What he has done even before being sworn in as the Commandant was to give his opinion and state that he would, if ordered obey as required by his oath. Like you he has an opinion, and my guess is his is much better informed than yours. I would also guess that the Secretary of Defense asked Gen Amos this very question before recommending the General to the President. Something you apparently either did not think of or believe happened. I would also think, that if the Secretary of Defense was unhappy with the General’s comments, he would have let the Secretary of the Navy direct the General to cease his comments or called him himself. I'm sure he has the General's mobile number.
Since you are obviously not a Veteran Marine or combat Veteran all you have is a very, very uninformed opinion of the military in general and the Marine Corps specifically. The military exists to fight and win wars. Not provide a position for social experimentation. When the country thinks the military is ready to embrace openly service gays and lesbians then believe me it will direct them accordingly. Their combat effectiveness should not be compromised too soon with a politically motivated edict.
Something else I would recommend you do. Read the Constitution. Nowhere does it guarantee EVERYONE the right to serve. This is not “Starship Troopers” where everyone is given a job in the military regardless."

CCC, I have indeed read the Constitution. Have you? If so, please identify the provision that says only veterans get to comment on military policy. Funny, I could have sworn the U.S. was a civilian-run democracy, not a junta.

In any case, lots of veterans, gay and straight, HAVE denounced DADT. Remember Barry Goldwater's comment that "You don't need to be straight to defend your country; you just need to shoot straight"?

You also misrepresent the general's comments on the issue--he did NOT publicly pledge to uphold the policy. Nor did I claim he disobeyed an order; I just pointed out he was grossly insubordinate to weigh in.

Somehow I seriously doubt you would be supporting the general's right to speak out publicly if he were calling for repeal of the policy instead of continuing it...

Posted by: DCSteve1 | November 8, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

«We also have the 5th and 14th amendments, in particular the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the state and federal governments to treat gay people equally under law.»

«Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010»

Christine O'Donnell, she could not find «separation of church and state» in the Constitution, they gasped at the law school, they made fun of her, but it turned out she was right, it is not in the Constitution, only «free exercise» and no «establishment of religion» are in the Constitution, the «separation» came from a Supreme Court case quoting a letter by Thos. Jefferson, the law students laughed at Christine O'Donnell because they thought «separation» is there in the Constitution, but it is not.

O Popkultur, your «Equal Protection Clause», it is in the 14th amendment, «No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.», the Army, no state runs the army, ¿where does it say the US Army has to have «equal protection»? Huh???

O Popkultur, your 5th amendment, where is the «Equal Protection Clause» in your 5th amendment? Huh??? It is where the «separation of church and state» is in the 1st amendment, it is Not There! This business of an «Equal Protection Clause» applying to USA Government, it is not in the Constitution, it was made up by the Supreme Court in 1954 in a case of Bolling against Sharpe in order to integrate schools which racists had segregated in D.C.

Stuff that is not in the Constitution, stuff that was made up by one Supreme Court, why, another Supreme Court can come along and unmake it. Five homophobic Justices, all it takes is five homophobic justices to say, there is no equal protection in the Navy, there will be no cruising on the cruisers, there is no equal protection in the Air Force, there will be no fisting on the fighters, there is no equal protection in the Marines, there will be no leathersex among the Leathernecks, there is no equal protection in the Army, there will be no inverts in the infantry.

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | November 8, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Before DADT goes really off the deep end (no pun) perhaps a few questions are in order. Among them might be:
1. In that gay is or was a grounds for firing or non-hire from both NSA and CIA is that policy still effect? If so why or why not? If it no longer applied to NSA or CIA then why the military?
2. Given that Gates was DCI did he ever, and he had to have, fire or terminate CIA employees for being gay?
3. In that one of most common arguments used against gays is that they are security risks and if they admit to being gay their clearance/access is revoked are any openly gay members of congress or the administration treated in the same manner? Of course the most obvious would be Frank. We will not even go to the treason case of Jane Harmon that was dismissed by Pelosi.
4. If DADT is repelled will those who were dismissed as being gay be reenstated? In that at the 'time' not to have disclosed this was a lie on the security questionaire/background check and hence grounds for denial of clearance will these records be adjusted?
5. Being gay no more guarantees a 'right' that having a fast car justify 100 mph in a school zone.
Anyway points to ponder.

Posted by: KBlit | November 8, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Blah blah blah homophobic slurs"

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | November 8, 2010 3:13 PM

There's no mention of a space program in the Constitution. There's no mention of the Air Force.

You're right, the moon landing was completely unconstitutional. The Air Force is a result of judicial activism.

I stand in awe of your brilliant legal analysis.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse


This headless chicken in the White House does NOT have the power to repeal or ignore a law by executive order. If there were no LAW it would be a matter of policy, then it would be different. However, in this case it is a law on the books. The DADT law is on the books. Repeal it Dims, if you have the votes.

As for how the Senate declares war the Constitution does not specify the form of a declaration of war. Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973 and several wars have been authorized under that law, how Congress decides to go to war is not a good analogy to DADT.


Posted by: screwjob22 | November 8, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

People seeking the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell are simply seeking the same rights to serve our nation that other people have, under the same conditions that apply to straight people. No more, but definitely no less.

Posted by: edallan | November 8, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

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

Soldiers who seek a repeal of DADT want the right to be in areas where people they could become sexually or romantically attracted to sleep, bathe, and dress.

It's illegal for the military or any employer to approve that.

DADT is a very generous policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve while also protecting the privacy rights of heterosexual soldiers. If a gay or lesbian soldier cannot comply with the expectations of the compromise, then he or she can receive a prompt, honorable discharge.

Repealing DADT will make a gay or lesbian soldier's most offensive and reprehensible personal conduct (not sexual conduct) a right.

Create a screen name and beg to differ with the gay agenda. You'll receive all manner of verbal abuse, ridicule, and bullying conduct. That's what repeal of DADT will make legal. People must accept that as part of another American's right, as I do, but soldiers and recruits should not have to accept it where they sleep, bathe, and dress.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 8, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Should a repeal of the 1993 DADT be successful we must compel acceptance of other alternative sexual lifestyle DADTs, if not we are bigoted. Other sexual preference DADTs include boys and men (NAMbLA.org), Incest, bestiality, bigamy, etc. Go another step, how about ending expensive equal but separate public "Men's Rooms" and "Women's Rooms," eliminate ‘retro’ sexual identities, outdated moral values, and allow and teach children and adults about full sexual expression in public centers.
Repealing DADTs affirms that the worldwide AIDS epidemic is no longer a concern to the United States. It is unimportant that the UN reports that 35 million people are infected with AIDS as the result of men having sex with men; the data includes heterosexuals, as men, infected by other men, continue to have sex with women (UNAIDS Secretariat: AIDS Epidemic Update, 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization).
DADT is not a civil right issue, it is a lifestyle preference. DADT has nothing to do with an individual’s ability, it protects sexual preferences without approving the lifestyle; just as bed hopping and wife swapping are reprehensible interests, ‘urges’ and ‘tendencies’. If we repeal one, we must repeal all DADTs. We must, to be uniform, repeal all moral standards, and doing so would just begin to scratch open the change of our social and global surface.

Anyone who cries “Homophobe” in the face of ‘disagreement’ don’t know what the term really means. Finally, some members of Congress are beginning to think.

Posted by: Sakievich | November 8, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Should a repeal of the 1993 DADT be successful we must compel acceptance of other alternative sexual lifestyle DADTs, if not we are bigoted. Other sexual preference DADTs include boys and men (NAMbLA.org), Incest, bestiality, bigamy, etc. Go another step, how about ending expensive equal but separate public "Men's Rooms" and "Women's Rooms," eliminate ‘retro’ sexual identities, outdated moral values, and allow and teach children and adults about full sexual expression in public centers.

Repealing DADTs affirms that the worldwide AIDS epidemic is no longer a concern to the United States. It is unimportant that the UN reports that 35 million people are infected with AIDS as the result of men having sex with men; the data includes heterosexuals, as men, infected by other men, continue to have sex with women (UNAIDS Secretariat: AIDS Epidemic Update, 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization).

DADT is not a civil right issue, it is a lifestyle preference. DADT has nothing to do with an individual’s ability, it protects sexual preferences without approving the lifestyle; just as bed hopping and wife swapping are reprehensible interests, ‘urges’ and ‘tendencies’. If we repeal one, we must repeal all DADTs. We must, to be uniform, repeal all moral standards, and doing so would just begin to scratch open the change of our social and global surface.

Running in circles, crying “Homophobe,” in the face of ‘disagreement’ doesn’t know what the term really means. Finally, some members of Congress are beginning to think.

Posted by: Sakievich | November 8, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"A poorly written, mess of flawed logic, prejudice, strawmen, and personal conjecture."

Posted by: Sakievich | November 8, 2010 3:38 PM

-

If you repost that a third time, Christine O'Donnell will grant you three wishes.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

«I stand in awe of your brilliant legal analysis.»

«Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 3:18 PM»

O Popkultur, it is easy to mock, they mocked Christine O'Donnell, too. The Constitution, now you go find in the Constitution an «equal protection clause» that applies to the USA federal government, then come back and tell us where you found it.

«There's no mention of a space program in the Constitution. There's no mention of the Air Force.»

It does not say there cannot be a space program or an air force, so having a space program and an air force does not contradict anything in the Constitution. It does say the Congress has power to make rules for land and naval forces, so saying Congress has to follow some judge-made «federal equal protection clause» does contradict something in the Constitution. Do you not listen to Les Kinsolving, O Popkultur???

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | November 8, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Everyone seems to keep forgetting that we shouldn't have a problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in the first place since it is, (was), illegal for gays to join the military and in seeking to join, knowing that they were violating Federal Law, have committed fraud against the government.

Posted by: WriterDude | November 8, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Everyone seems to keep forgetting that we shouldn't have a problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in the first place since it is, (was), illegal for gays to join the military and in seeking to join, knowing that they were violating Federal Law, have committed fraud against the government.

Posted by: WriterDude | November 8, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

popkultur: For your review, the 2009 UNAIDS citation came from: http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/EpiUpdate/EpiUpdArchive/2009/default.asp

Posted by: Sakievich | November 8, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It does say the Congress has power to make rules for land and naval forces, so saying Congress has to follow some judge-made «federal equal protection clause» does contradict something in the Constitution. Do you not listen to Les Kinsolving, O Popkultur???

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | November 8, 2010 3:53 PM

Article III establishes federal courts, and Marbury v. Madison says that courts have the authority to review laws enacted by Congress. *yawn*

You seem to be arguing awfully hard to preserve a policy which doesn't even affect you, but only denies rights to others. It's fascinating how hard the bigots will fight to deny equal rights to other people. If only they fought that hard against the health insurance lobbyists and the giant corporations shipping our jobs overseas, then America might stand a fighting chance.

Posted by: popkultur | November 8, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

If DADT is repealed than we could have cross dressing drill sergeants? Wow! guess I'll be betting on the Taliban

Posted by: twharvey1 | November 8, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Democrats need to stop being bullied by these fringe special interest groups.

Repealing DADT would be crazy chaos....

Dems need to get their priorities straight.

Posted by: Rubiconski | November 8, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

There is a real conundrum, section 8states that the cCongress shall have the power to regulate the military. The courts do have the authority to rule on laws passed by the congress, but can they rule on a basic article of the Constitution? If Congress passes a law regulating the military they are carrying out their Constitutional duty under Section 8 and it shouldn't be subject to review by the courts. Be interesting to see if the court rules that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Posted by: hc01 | November 8, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

When I served in the Army at Fort Ord in the late 50's there was no policy such as DADT. When someone sexually displayed homosexual tendencies, he was forewarned by by the men in the barracks. I recall one or two soldiers coming over to bunks and trying to fondle another soldier. Continued aggressive conduct ended up in a fight. Not pretty, I assure you. If DADT is repealed, it will result in chaos. No matter how many "PC" classes troops attend, men will not tolerate open homosexual conduct that disrupts unit cohesion. The issue will be resolved in the barracks. In the end, DADT will be the rule.

Posted by: ngonzalestito1 | November 8, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

FYI for Kblit and everybody else....

Zero Tolerance of Harassment and Discrimination at CIA
Statement from the Director: Zero Tolerance of Harassment and Discrimination

The Central Intelligence Agency can only be as strong and as good as its people. This organization, the servant of a democracy, must embody and reflect the highest values of that democracy. CIA has zero tolerance for harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or status as a parent. That is both a legal obligation and a civic duty. For me, public service in America is inseparable from the promotion of equal opportunity. I view the Agency’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity as a strong resource, a reservoir of advice and expertise, in fostering the best possible work environment. Make use of the knowledge and talent there. As always, if any employee encounters or witnesses behavior that may cross the line into harassment or discrimination, they, too, should contact OEEO. They can do so secure in the knowledge that the Agency—and the law—shields them from reprisal.

I will hold managers at every level accountable for the working environment in the units they lead. You have a right to expect that. But every Agency employee—supervisor and non-supervisor alike—has a shared responsibility to ensure that CIA is an equitable, harassment-free place in which to serve, grow, and excel.

We must all strive to build and sustain a workplace worthy of our mission. Our awareness of that duty must guide—among other actions—the complete range of management decisions, from hiring and training to assignments, promotion, and career development. If CIA is to be at its best in safeguarding America, a difficult job in a dangerous world, we need to get the most from all our officers. We need them to reach their full potential.

By being true to these policies, we demonstrate the values that shape our nation and inspire our service. They are central to our identity as an Agency and to our effectiveness in protecting the American people.

Leon E. Panetta
Director

Posted: Apr 05, 2007 12:27 PM
Last Updated: Feb 25, 2010 02:30 PM
Last Reviewed: Dec 11, 2008 02:39 PM

So, looks like you can be hired at the CIA and be gay, too.

Posted by: johnusa1 | November 8, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

FYI for Kblit and everybody else....

Zero Tolerance of Harassment and Discrimination at CIA
Statement from the Director: Zero Tolerance of Harassment and Discrimination

The Central Intelligence Agency can only be as strong and as good as its people. This organization, the servant of a democracy, must embody and reflect the highest values of that democracy. CIA has zero tolerance for harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or status as a parent. That is both a legal obligation and a civic duty. For me, public service in America is inseparable from the promotion of equal opportunity. I view the Agency’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity as a strong resource, a reservoir of advice and expertise, in fostering the best possible work environment. Make use of the knowledge and talent there. As always, if any employee encounters or witnesses behavior that may cross the line into harassment or discrimination, they, too, should contact OEEO. They can do so secure in the knowledge that the Agency—and the law—shields them from reprisal.

I will hold managers at every level accountable for the working environment in the units they lead. You have a right to expect that. But every Agency employee—supervisor and non-supervisor alike—has a shared responsibility to ensure that CIA is an equitable, harassment-free place in which to serve, grow, and excel.

We must all strive to build and sustain a workplace worthy of our mission. Our awareness of that duty must guide—among other actions—the complete range of management decisions, from hiring and training to assignments, promotion, and career development. If CIA is to be at its best in safeguarding America, a difficult job in a dangerous world, we need to get the most from all our officers. We need them to reach their full potential.

By being true to these policies, we demonstrate the values that shape our nation and inspire our service. They are central to our identity as an Agency and to our effectiveness in protecting the American people.

Leon E. Panetta
Director

Posted: Apr 05, 2007 12:27 PM
Last Updated: Feb 25, 2010 02:30 PM
Last Reviewed: Dec 11, 2008 02:39 PM

So, looks like you can be hired at the CIA and be gay, too.

Posted by: johnusa1 | November 8, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I guess I don't understand this issue. What is it that gays want from this repeal? Do they want to tell their fellow military their sexual preference? Do they want to dress in a particular way?
=========================
What do they want?

When their comrades say "Gee, I miss my wife," or "I can't wait to see my husband again" in a combat situation, they'd like to be able to say "me, too" instead of being forced to tell some bold face lie.

They'd like to be able to invite their unit members to their family celebrations.

They'd like to live day-to-day without the fear of being kicked out of the military if their sexual orientation is discovered.

They'd like to be able to tell the truth and serve, like the gentlemen and gentlewomen they are, with courage, honor, and dignity.

Posted by: carlaclaws | November 8, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The new Army March will be
" The Dance of the Sugar Plumb Fairy."

Posted by: Tony27 | November 8, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

At one time to eliminate the possibility of blackmail any candidate for the CIA who was gay had to inform their parents, relatives and other close associates. The Agency then verified that this had been done prior to granting a security clearance. Broad statements of non-harassment have been standard boiler plate CYA for all Federal Agencies. My knowledge of the Agency goes back some years, but I would suspect that it is about the same today. I do know from my personal knowledge that openly gay Americans serving abroad (not in the military) have had their careers derailed by indiscriminate sexual activity. Photos taken by foreign governments which would certainly put the US in a bad light. I will also say that straight people have gotten themselves in the same boat with photos that they would rather not appear in the local press. Stupid behavior isn't limited to one sexual preference.

Posted by: hc01 | November 8, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's cowardice and hypocrisy on Don't Ask Don't Tell will do more than ensure he is a one-term president. This is a disaster that will fracture the progressive movement for a generation. The gay community and much of the larger progressive movement will not forgive him for reneging on this important demand of decent-minded America when he had the ball in hand. Failure will be his fault, not the Senate's fault.

The gay community will not be with him in 2012. I actually worked for the Democratic Party and I will have a very hard time personally forgiving him for this, and it's difficult to imagine myself making phone calls or walking precincts for him in 2012. Win or lose, the Black community will resent the gay community for not being there for Obama. Relations between the two communities are bad enough as it is, and this will make enemies of people who should be progressive friends for a generation. A fractured base can't fight a unified opponent, and support for the Democratic Party will drop.

I'm angry, and I'm angry *that* I'm angry. A progressive like me should not be angry at this president. But he has kicked gay Americans and fair-minded Americans in the eye, gratuitously, and I don't see how to get over that.

Obama has personally unleashed a political disaster that will preoccupy the progressive movement with infighting until the day 30, 40, 50 years from now when DADT is finally repealed. Some community organizer he is.

Posted by: jdsher00 | November 8, 2010 11:45 A
*******

We elected a President not an absolute ruler and your comments are silly. If the Gay community is so thin-skinned about Obama's lack of ability to override the ultrawhite, ultraorthodox Repugnicants, the religious cults, the SCOTUS and all other haters, in two years of the most awful time in this country in the last 60 years, then that is too darn bad. Can you name anyone else so exulted as to achieve this society-changing event? Do you and silly people like you have any suggestions or the power that you think Obama has? No? Thought not!
Gay people will have the opportunity to give their lives for these fear-filled homophobes when the courts override their fears like they did with Civil Rights. Personally, I've worked with a few gay soldiers and they were magnificent examples of what a soldier is supposed to be. Bush and Cheney took our good men and women and then they even took a grandmother in her sixties for Iraqi adventure, but a gay man, no way. And Cheney with all of his power and influence couldn't even get his gay daughter in if she wanted to join, which she didn't because Cheney's don't sacrifice their lives for anyone. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | November 8, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

We see in Robert Gates the operation of the Spirit of Anti-Christ in his effort to push forward the homosexual agenda on the very eve of the Christmas Season.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 8, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, demented Sen. John McDiaper needs someone to change his Depends more frequently. He's become as mendacious as Bush and as clueless as Reagan during Iran-Contra.

An international embarrassment.

Posted by: clitteigh | November 9, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

«Obviously, demented Sen. John McDiaper needs someone to change his Depends more frequently. He's become as mendacious as Bush and as clueless as Reagan during Iran-Contra.»

«An international embarrassment.»

«Posted by: clitteigh | November 9, 2010 1:40 PM »

Embarrassment, insulting people and calling them names, that is the embarrassment. Washington Post, here it gives us a chance to discuss issues, we can say, «No, O Ed O'Keefe, hopes are not dimming on repeal». Or we can say, «Repeal is good, and here is why . . .» Or we can say, «Repeal is not good, because Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "A man must not look at a man's private parts, nor a woman at a woman's; and a man must not come close to a man in one garment, nor a woman to a woman in one garment." (quoted in Ṣaḥiḥ, by Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj, Cairo, 1349 A.H.)»

But, ¿why take this opportunity that the Washington Post gives us, and waste it on calling a US Senator and two USA ex-Presidents names? Huh?? Contribute, how does name calling contribute to the discussion? Should we not heed Motorist Rodney King, who asks, «¿can we not all get along?»

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | November 9, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Correction - We see in Robert Gates, and the Obama Whitehouse, the operation of the Spirit of Anti-Christ in their efforts to push forward the homosexual agenda on the very eve of the Christmas Season.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMOEROTIC URGE?

Surface observations, and conclusions based on them, while well-intentioned, go nowhere when trying to fathom the reason why an individual can be turned against his own God-Given identity.

Ask any normal male, and they will tell you, that the most powerful thing in their life is their attraction to women.

Sure, men can have an array of other interests, but when you are speaking about the one thing that moves them powerfully, it is their attraction to the opposite sex.
And so, we must ask, what in the world could possibly get in the way of what God intended to be the most powerful directive in the life of every male child?

There is only one answer to this. The force that derails the God-Given identity comes from the outside, and is associated with forces of evil which are intent on destroying what God has created.

This will be proven through sophisticated sensing technology in the not too distant future, that the source of the homoerotic urge has its origin in the black heart of the demonic forces, which reside on the astral plane. The homoerotic urge is broadcast into the astral body of the vulnerable soul, and if the individual acts on the urge, then they become hooked to the demonic controller, who will be able to tug that chain at will.

The soul becomes vulnerable to this manipulation when it neglects for too long, its responsibility to work with God our Father to build up a shield of light in the aura.

The only solution to this state of enslavement, which threatens the very life of the soul, is to seek the help of God. Freedom from enslavement to the forces of darkness, can only come through the Intercession of God.

However, the individual trapped in the homosexual lifestyle has another factor working against him. The connection between the astral body of the victim, and the astral body of the controlling demon causes the victims feeling world to be colored with the demons disdain and contempt towards God. Just as the victim believes the homoerotic urge is a natural expression of the identity, so too does the victim believe that this feeling of disdain towards God represents an attribute of his own natural identity. But it is not true. These are both elements of the demonic manipulation.

I believe every individual who is trapped in the homosexual lifestyle knows this is true at some level. They can sense the characteristic of aggressiveness that is associated with every homoerotic urge. I think in some instances it comes upon them when they least expect it. And thus, every homoerotic urge comes with a sense of being manipulated. And they are also aware of the fact that they have an attitude towards God that is not positive. They should add these two factors together, and this will point to the origin of their problem.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Blah blah blah"

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 4:04 PM

Are you writing this from the inside of an insane asylum?

Posted by: popkultur | November 9, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

popkultur says, "Are you writing this from the inside of an insane asylum?"

I am wondering why the image of an insane asylum comes to the mind of homosexuals when their state of slavery is exposed. For a moment, does their own predicament come into view?

The question you (popkultur) should have asked is, "Am I looking at the truth, through a window which GoldenEagles has provided, from inside a room in my own insane asylum?"

For of a truth, the opposite of wisdom, is that which defies the Laws of God. The opposite of wisdom, is a pile of logic all broken up and scattered on the ground. What are the characteristics of that mind which tries to operate in such a disconnected state?

Every person trapped in the homosexual lifestyle should ponder that question long and hard, trying to put the pieces back together.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering why the image of an insane asylum comes to mind

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 6:52 PM

Go back and reread your post.

Posted by: popkultur | November 9, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Your Honor, I rest my case.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

«Freedom from enslavement to the forces of darkness, . . . »
«However, the individual trapped in the homosexual lifestyle has another factor working against him. The connection between the astral body of the victim, and the astral body of the controlling demon causes the victims feeling world to be colored with the demons disdain . . . »

«Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 9, 2010 4:04 PM»

O Golden Eagles, all of this, it is very spiritual, but ¿what does «the astral body of the victim» have to do with tolerating trannies in the trenches, suffering sodomy on the submarines, or fostering felching on the frigates?

«Enslavement»?? Hey, Eagles, there ain't no more enslavement, this the USA, Thirteenth Amendment outlaws enslavement, ask a Tea Party man to lend you his copy of USA Constitution, read it right there, enslavement is Unconstitutional, look it up!

«Forces of darkness»?? «Demon's disdain»?? Occam's Razor, O Golden Eagles, ¿have you never heard of Occam's Razor? «Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate» (for you folks in Rio Linda, that means, «Plurality should not be posited without necessity»). Positing, you are positing an «astral soul», and a «demonic controller» by whom the «homoerotic urge is broadcast into the astral body of the vulnerable soul». Entities, that's a lot of entities that you are multiplying there! William of Occam, if he were alive to read this, William of Occam would be LOL and ROFL!

«Demon's disdain» (what, O Eagles, ¿do you have a thing for alliteration?), science, ¿how will science be able to verify the existence of «demon's disdain», huh??? Demon's disdain, it is strictly suppository, so ¿why not posit something that science can verify? Like pheromones and noses! Noses, straight people's noses have receptors for opposite-sex pheromones, the straight man, his nose receptors, they receive pheromones from a big-eyed girl, they make him act so funny, make him spend his money, make him feel real loose like a long-necked goose, O baby, that's what he likes!

The other man, maybe the wires, they are crossed in the receptors in his nose, he sees a handsome man in a band master's uniform, the band master's pheromones get to the non-straight man's nose receptors, now all he wants is a plain man, all he wants is a modest man, a quiet man, a gentle man, a straightforward and honest man to sit with him in a cottage somewhere in the state of Iowa, where the state supreme court has legalized same-sex marriage.

Route 202 in Wilmington, let some big pharmaceutical company on Route 202 in Wilmington, Delaware, come up with a nasal spray to uncross the wires in receptors. Fred Lemish, if he feels «trapped» in his homosexual «lifestyle», let him go to Wilmington, buy a spray can, squirt his nose, uncross his receptors, react positively to a girl with Chantilly lace and a pretty face and a pony tail hanging down, to the wiggle in her walk and the giggle in her talk that make the world go round.

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | November 10, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse


abu_ibrahim says, "how will science be able to verify the existence of demon's disdain"

We are coming close to the time where high technology sensing systems will be developed, that will allow us to see into the astral plane, where the demonic forces will be seen juxtaposed to their homosexual slaves. Because of the truly terrifying appearance of these demons it would be better for homosexuals to seek their freedom now, rather than to wait until these creatures can be seen face to face. Some will choose suicide, but this technology will expose this truth as well, that when the soul exists the body, it remains the slave of the demonic force. So the “solution” of suicide, which appears to offer an escape hatch, will be abandoned forever. And that would be good thing. In every way, it would be better for the homosexual now, to turn to God, and take His Hand, and work with Him, through appropriate devotional practices and prayers, to build up a Shield of Light in the aura that will force the demons to back away.

As to your other observations, I must say, that I have always believed this to be true, that the superstitions that occupy the mind of the materialists, their superstitions flourish and multiply to an extent that exceeds those of religious believers, in a ratio of about 10,000 to 1.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 10, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

And the only reason that the people of faith have any superstitions at all, is that they stubbornly insist on keeping one foot in the camp of the materialists.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 10, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company