Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 12/15/2010

Most back repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' poll says

By Ed O'Keefe and Jon Cohen

Eye Opener

Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The results signal continued widespread public support for ending the military's 17-year ban on gays in the military and come as Congress prepares to vote again on legislation ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law.

Overall, 77 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military. That's little changed from polls over the two years, but represents the highest level of support in a Post-ABC poll. The support also cuts across partisan and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans, independents, liberals, conservatives and white evangelical Protestants in favor of homosexuals' serving openly.

The House of Representatives is set to vote Wednesday on a bill that would repeal "don't ask, don't tell," and it is expected to pass easily in the Democratic-dominated House; its fate in the Senate remains uncertain.

The survey asked "gays and lesbians" or "homosexuals," presenting each term to random half-samples of respondents. Both versions of the questions yielded similar results.

Respondents were also asked about gays and lesbians who do and do not publicly state their sexual orientation.

When asked -- "Do you think [homosexuals/gays and lesbians] who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?" -- 83 percent of respondents said yes, 14 percent said no and 4 percent had no opinion. Again, the terms "Homosexuals" and "gays and lesbians" were used interchangeably by survey takers.

And when asked -- "Do you think [homosexuals/gays and lesbians] who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?" -- 77 percent said yes, 21 percent said no and 2 percent had no opinion.

The results mirror the findings of a February Post/ABC poll that found 75 percent of Americans backed allowing gays serve openly in the military.

The poll was conducted Dec 9 to 12 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Q: Changing topics, do you think [half sample: homosexuals/half sample: gays and lesbians] who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

           Yes   No   No opinión     
12/12/10   83    14        4 
2/8/10*    83    15        1 
7/13/08    78    18        5 
1/15/01    75    22        3 
5/23/93    63    35        2 
*"homosexuals"
                      Lib   Cons  White   No 
    Dems  Reps  Inds  Dems  Reps  Evang. Relig. 

Yes  89    82    80    92    81    75     87     
No   10    14    15     7    15    19     10 
DK    1     3     4     1     4     6      2

Q: Do you think [half sample: homosexuals/half sample: gays and lesbians] who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

           Yes   No   No opinion 
12/12/10   77    21        2 
2/8/10*    75    24        1 
7/13/08    75    22        3 
1/15/01    62    35        3 
5/23/93    44    55        2 
*"homosexuals"
                      Lib   Cons  White   No 
    Dems  Reps  Inds  Dems  Reps  Evang. Relig. 
Yes  86    74    74    92    67    70      84 
No   13    23    24     7    30    28      14 
DK    2     3     2     1     4     2       2

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

Cabinet and Staff News: President Obama meets with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The Bidens are split on "Black Swan." Richard Holbrooke's death leaves a void in Obama's Afghanistan strategy while his final words are clarified and explained. Rahm Emanuel testifies at a hearing challenging his Chicago residency.

CENSUS BUREAU:

Falls Church a bastion of education and affluence, census data show: The estimates were among 11 billion separate statistics made available Tuesday in what officials called the biggest release of data "in the history of mankind."

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT:

Marine general suggests repeal of 'don't ask' could result in casualties: "When your life hangs on the line," said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, "you don't want anything distracting."

Army 'birther' pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges: Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty in a military court to a charge that included not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not reporting to duty at Fort Campbell in Kentucky.

FBI:

FBI investigating Gawker hack: Federal investigators are scheduled to met with the company's CEO after hackers got hold of passwords and e-mail addresses of 1.3 million users.

FEDERAL RESERVE:

Fed policy on buying Treasury bonds stays on track: Six weeks after it unveiled plans to buy $600 billion in Treasury bonds in a gambit to prop up growth, leaders showed no signs of backing away despite a round of sharp criticism.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT:

Justice Department to join oil-spill lawsuits: Dozens of private-party lawsuits have been consolidated in so-called multidistrict litigation in federal court in New Orleans, representing claims against BP PLC and its contractors for damages from the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE:

Postal worker arrested after delivering mail naked: A Wisconsin postal carrier says he simply wanted to cheer up a woman on his rounds who seemed "stressed out" when he decided to deliver mail in the buff.

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe and Jon Cohen  | December 15, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye Opener, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House to vote Wednesday on new 'don't ask, don't tell' bill
Next: Obama approves new federal building names

Comments

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

Posted by: Smarg | December 15, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Since these polls seem to be playing extremem importance, I think its important to find out if an organization like Gallup would consider the numbers and way the polls were executed as valid enough to provide a reliable statement as lofty as 7 out 10 americans believe ....

Has anyone asked Gallup?

Posted by: Tony56 | December 15, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse


Hello,

Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site==== == http://www.1shopping.us/ ,

good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15

New era cap $12

accept paypal and free shipping

====== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Posted by: shoestrade433 | December 15, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Hope McCain reads the results of the Poll.

Doubt that it would make any difference. He is a stubborn bigoted old man who would never change his position on an issue unless he thought it was necessary in order to win an election.

He is safe for the next 6 years so re-election is no longer on his mind.

Posted by: WESHS49 | December 15, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse


WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY?

The DADT questions are asked of only a half sample. If full samples are required to get results somewhere in the ballpark of accurate, then a half sample is not even worth looking at. What additional presumptions they had to pull and twist and distort, to compensate for the lack one half of the data, one does not know, because they never say.

And anyway, military matters are not decided by polls. Military matters are decided by military experts in consultation with members of Congress, who look at the information in terms of what will best help our military win wars.

The general public answers these questions primarily on what they believe will help the homosexual feel good. This is fine, I suppose, for assessing whether a homosexual should be allowed to work at McDonald's (heaven forbid). But this is not the criteria used to decide if something is wise or foolish from a national security perspective.

If our military leaders, such as General Amos, the Marine Corps Commandant, tell us that the presence of open homosexuality in the military will cause such unit disruption, that their fighting efficiency will be adversely impacted to the extent where we lose more of our soldiers to enemy fire, then this is what counts.

From a military and national security perspective, if a particular policy will cause the death of more of our soldiers, then such a policy is rejected as unwise, dangerous, and heartless, when it comes to those soldiers whose lives are being put at increased risk.

Republicans, God Bless Them, are holding the line on what is best for our national security interests. No DADT Repeal.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 15, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

WHY NOT POLL ALL THE VETERANS THAT HAVE SERVED MORE THAN THREE YEARS DURING THE LAST FIFTY YEARS AND THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THIS QUESTION THAT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MILITARY FORCES.

Posted by: jackwbarnes1 | December 15, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

We should be careful about being too "exclusive" about to whom we allow the privilege of joining our Military Services, lest we be faced with returning to a Draft. Do you remember YOUR draft lottery number from the Vietnam War? Unhappy conscripts make lousy soldiers, potentially leading to battlefield losses.

Posted by: Zontag | December 15, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

No, Ed, most people don't.

You have to look at the source of the polling data, and it is past clear that anything poll that comes from ABC is, one, unscientific, and two, not based on a majority of anything. If it were, then the Republicans would not have won the last election in November, in a landslide. This essentially proves that no one is watching or paying attention to ABC for any news data, as they have proven themselves, like WaPo, and you, Ed, to be irrelevent news outlets with a liberal bias, that Americans have shunned, and accordingly so.

Fact is, gays and lesbians have been abl to serve in the military forever...why is it necessary to serve openly? It's not, its not relevent, not smart, and will cause all kinds of issues.

Now, before any of you little uneducated lemmings who have never served anything but hamburgers and coffee begin your bashfest, I, personally have no issue with gay people....but facts are facts, and this should be a non-issue. It is, to anyone WITH a brain, nothing more than a political stunt. Why is it none of you braindead ever think about the unintended consequences that WILL occur?

Posted by: cstrasburger | December 15, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I had enough of the Rhetoric and the Political strong hold on gay U.S. citizens who want to serve their country. Either your a citizen born with the same right’s every other U.S. citizens. Under the Untied States constitutions man are created equal. But, you would have those in power who would want to rewrite the constitutions to support their prejudices, thus striping the dignity of our follow human beings. There is no reason why gay men and women cannot serve openly without harm from their heterosexual team members. As a straight Naval veteran I serve with gay military members for 14 years, all of them were my former supervisors. I never expose them because its discrimination under the constitutions and title 7 EEOC.

Serving one country is an honor that is given to every nature born citizen. This is not, nor should be about one sexually. It should always be about one character and how he / she conduct themselves in uniform. Homosexually have been in our U.S. military since the beginning of time. Throughout history Homosexually have serve in many war’s and served with honor. The real problem is the bigotry that is promoted within their ranks. The United of America is the only country that still discrimination against its own citizens because of their sexually. This debunks Gen. Amos assumptions.

Posted by: anthonywseda | December 15, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

cstrasburger wrote: "Why is it none of you braindead ever think about the unintended consequences that WILL occur?"

What are those consequences? Why can no one ever provide a list when asked this? Even the Marine top brass fumbled that question just the other day. Also, please provide an example of a military force that went downhill after gays were allowed to serve openly instead of having to hide it.

The military needs to grow up and get with the times, or provide some FACTS to back up their argument.

Posted by: rjm1 | December 15, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Pass DADT now. Then go on to other things.

I have special scorn for people like Senator Brown from Massachusetts. He wants to proclaim his support for DADT while voting against cloture. There are a couple of others that way too.

They should be told that they are adults now, US Senators. They have to act on what they proclaim or they are just weasling politicians.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 15, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I believe anyone who's gay should be committed. They don't look normal, have a high incidence of suicide and are a menace to society with their filty habits and high risks for AIDS!

Posted by: BigFootObama | December 15, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

They didn't ask me and tens of thousands like me. Actually, it kind of chaps my hide with the country in the kind of shape it's in that our representatives are even wasting any time considering this nonsense. Talk about trying to appease the liberal gay base. It sickens me actually.

Posted by: OlafGunderson | December 15, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

7 in 10, eh. Are they who are serving, have served, never served, never intend to serve, etc.? Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | December 15, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The fact is, there are always unintended consequences of political actions...in particular with liberal policy. The unintended consequences of this particular issue is the discomfort that some have with being around gay people...like it our not, it is a fact, and, its ok, just like its ok that gays serve in the military.

Another unintended consequence is that radical islam, and in fact, ALL of islam has big issues with gay people, and since they are, like it or not, our biggest threat worldwide, they would relish having custody of a few gay people to mutilate in front of cameras that the uninformed, uneducated, like you apparently, could see what they think about it...I could go on and on...

Unfortunately, Amos was attempting to be politically correct, which is a major part of the problem in this country today. Not trying to offend someone he stumbled over his words, and to be expected, especially with this incompetent idiot in the white house who, like I stated in my earlier post, is using this issue for political gain....not what is right for the military, which he obviously hates, as do most of the moronic lemmings on the left.

Though I digress...and you missed the point. Fact is, most people DO NOT support this, as Clinton found out when he originally passed DADT, which was the RIGHT thing to do. Liberalism is never about right or wrong, it is always about imaginary victims and imaginary victimization.

Posted by: cstrasburger | December 15, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

The fact is, there are always unintended consequences of political actions...in particular with liberal policy. The unintended consequences of this particular issue is the discomfort that some have with being around gay people...like it our not, it is a fact, and, its ok, just like its ok that gays serve in the military.

Another unintended consequence is that radical islam, and in fact, ALL of islam has big issues with gay people, and since they are, like it or not, our biggest threat worldwide, they would relish having custody of a few gay people to mutilate in front of cameras that the uninformed, uneducated, like you apparently, could see what they think about it...I could go on and on...

Unfortunately, Amos was attempting to be politically correct, which is a major part of the problem in this country today. Not trying to offend someone he stumbled over his words, and to be expected, especially with this incompetent idiot in the white house who, like I stated in my earlier post, is using this issue for political gain....not what is right for the military, which he obviously hates, as do most of the moronic lemmings on the left.

Though I digress...and you missed the point. Fact is, most people DO NOT support this, as Clinton found out when he originally passed DADT, which was the RIGHT thing to do. Liberalism is never about right or wrong, it is always about imaginary victims and imaginary victimization.

Posted by: cstrasburger | December 15, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Smarg
=======================

REALLY..which god was that??

Posted by: pdq2 | December 15, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY?

Republicans, God Bless Them, are holding the line on what is best for our national security interests. No DADT Repeal.

Posted by: GoldenEagles
===================================

Which god gop are you talking about??

Posted by: pdq2 | December 15, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and one more thing....the discomfort some have with being around gays, is the same disgust I have about being around liberals...and that's ok too. And, based on the last election, I seem to have lots of compatriots that share the same feeling....

Posted by: cstrasburger | December 15, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse


WaPo cooks their own push polls to match their editorial position and to sell newspapers.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 15, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Smarg: so is eating pork. And shellfish. And working on the sabbath.

Posted by: anonymice | December 15, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Heterosexual males must be the very weakest most fragile part of the human race to fear the chance that a fellow soldier showering near them might glance at their 'package', and if they are being shot at in combat they would be distracted by feeling unsure who the the soldier being shot at next might be attracted to sexually- Wow, all that while being shot at!!!

Posted by: 10bestfan | December 15, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

This column must have been Tweeted to an online forum for bigots! I've never seen a comments section so dominated by know-nothings whose views are waaaaay out of the mainstream. In fact, repealing DADT has been hugely popular in EVERY poll by EVERY organization (except maybe Fox News and your bigots' forum) for a decade now. Which makes it extraordinary that Senate Republicans can get away with their obstruction, yet still claim concern for national security.

Posted by: jonfromcali | December 15, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post's Repeal DADT Campaign is in full swing.

Posted by: moebius22 | December 15, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse


A poll of voters last month resulted in 63 Dims ousted from the House and 6 from the Senate.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 15, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 15, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

where did you take this poll?in san francisco.i know it wasn`t from active military or veteran groups.

Posted by: SISSD1 | December 15, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

jonfromcali...spoken like a true mindless lemming of the left, with a baseless comment on nothing based in reality and that that's all you lefty rejects can do.

Well, you are from california, so I suppose that to be expected...especially from a state that re-elected the same moron, "moonbeam", that in reality, has bankrupted your state with inept, irresponsible, idiotic liberal fiscal policy.

Is there something in the water out there?

Posted by: cstrasburger | December 15, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

This column must have been Tweeted to an online forum for bigots! I've never seen a comments section so dominated by know-nothings whose views are waaaaay out of the mainstream. In fact, repealing DADT has been hugely popular in EVERY poll by EVERY organization (except maybe Fox News and your bigots' forum) for a decade now. Which makes it extraordinary that Senate Republicans can get away with their obstruction, yet still claim concern for national security.

Posted by: jonfromcali | December 15, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The better question would be, "Would you like to eat, sleep, shower, spend all your time, and trust your life with/to an openly lgbt person?" THAT is the question which should be asked, and only of those who will have to do it. We should not care one whit what those who will not be directly affected by this proposal have to say.

I suggest that, if this is repealed, the gov't create solely lgbt units, and let's see how that works.

Morale and cohesiveness are essential to our fighting forces, and if repeal will adversely affect them, it should not be considered. Only this president and this congress think that performing this social experiment with people (the vast majority of whom are in their sexual prime) who are risking their lives every minute to protect us makes sense.

I don't think that any military branch should be forced to live under a repeal unless 90+% of their fighting forces endorse it.

Posted by: coffic | December 15, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT A HOMOSEXUAL WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"- CAN NOT SHOW WHERE OR HOW THAT PERSON GOT HIS/HER "ORIENTATION"! THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS, AND MANY OF THESE "ORIENTATIONS"(DESIRES) ARE AGAINST OUR LAWS!
SOME HAVE THE DESIRE TO ROB BANKS,MOLEST CHILDREN,HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS,OR MARRY A FAMILY MEMBER, AND WE DISCRIMINATE AND SAY, "NO,OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T ALLOW THAT!"
BUT THE HOMOSEXUALS (A 2 OR 3% OF OUR POPULATION) HAVE PUSHED AND CLAMORED FOR OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR DISGUSTING, DISEASE SPREADING SEXUAL ACTS-TO THE POINT THAT OUR MAJOR LEADERS, COURTS, AND NOW OUR ELITE MILITARY ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THESE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS!
BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON THE ATTEMPTS TO CURE, OR AT LEAST SLOW DOWN THE AIDS HOLOCAUST.
TELL THE TRUTH- SODOMY IS WHAT IT IS- AN UN-NATURAL SEXUAL ACT AND A SIN!

Posted by: lyn3 | December 15, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I have several gay friends in the military. They do just fine and encounter no harassment, verbal abuse, or discrimination from their colleagues or superiors. In addition, I have many--not several, but many--friends who are retired officers who, without exception, say the rule is no longer necessary, if indeed it ever was. There are thousands of Leonard Matloviches and Bruce Glendenings out there who serve their country and yes, die for their country just fine. It would be nice for them to be able to serve without the spectre of a dishonorable and loss of pension hanging over their heads.

Posted by: bucinka8 | December 15, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Smarg | December 15, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

________________________

I could say the same of a majority of Congressional Members and the GOP in particular. Truly hatefilled people who will never see their maker. Burn baby burn.

Posted by: racerdoc | December 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Someone else made a point a few days ago on another blog that I think bears repeating. Does anyone out there actually think the soldiers on the ground don't already KNOW who in their units is gay? My former brother-in-law, who was a Marine, said his unit certainly did, and that was 35 years ago. Get real, people.

I think bucinka8 make sense here.

Posted by: GordonCash | December 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

@GoldenEagles,

Man, you need to go back and take a HS class in statistics. A full sample is required for an accurate poll? What does that even mean? Why don't we just split this into two polls, and now your "half sample" is a "full sample."

See, in the scientific method, we advocate a little something called "control." That's why half of the participants were randomly selected to see "homosexuals" instead of "gays and lesbians." It's also why half of the sample group was selected to see a positive question instead of a negative question.

Furthermore, the accuracy (AKA margin of error) of a poll is determined by its sample size and randomization:

If you polled every American, your results would be spot on. If you polled half of Americans, your results would still be highly statistically significant. (I.e., your half-population sample would reflect almost exactly your full-population sample.)

If you polled every American, you'd perfectly represent the ideals and ideologies of America and the diversity therein. If you take a truly random sample of Americans, you'd also get a near-perfect representation of this diversity. On the other hand, if you limited your polling to "liberals" or "Democrats" or "conservatives" or "Tea Party members" or "wealthy" or "unemployed" or Texans or Californians, you'd find your results skewed pretty well.

If you want to take issue with this polling, I'd do it on the basis of randomization.

Of course, WaPo addressed the accuracy of their poll (within 3.5% margin of error), but even if you're wisely skeptical (as you should be of all polls), tack on another 10% and the results are still pretty telling.

Posted by: getjiggly2 | December 15, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I love reading that the JOhn MCCains wanted a poll and a study and this and that and this and that. PROOF PROOF PROOF then when the Proof is provided that hey-Americans on the whole are in favor of repealing DADT The POlls and the studies aren't good enough. They must be fixed, unscientific, a fraud.

Well except for the very old, the bigotted and the just plain HATEFUL people who for some reason will hate (also against a commandment of God;s) YES --- the people in this country are saying ---Grow up Get a life. Get out of our bedrooms and let those honorable people of every background, race, creed, and sexual orientation serve their country with honor.

This is what the American people want. We have evolved as a society where we no longer want to hate people.

Bigots --- Hate is a totally wasted emotion. It fills you up, makes you so negative, and tells people that you are not normal.

We as a country have moved passed judging people by what they do, and judge people by their actions. If you are willing to put your life on the line for your country, then hey God Bless you for protecting me and my liberties.

That is what this country is about. People growing and learning about each other.
The majority of Americans think hate is wrong. And of course the majority of Americas are not bigoted.

SO bigots are becoming a dying breed. I thank God for that every day.

Soon Bigotry and hate will be endangered species that can no longer BREED.

Posted by: racerdoc | December 15, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.
---------
Besides being the least experienced of all the poll companies, Rasmussen has been shown over and over to be biased. Scott Rasmussen was a major contributor to the RNC and Dumbya's re-election campaign in 2004. He has a bias and an agenda.

Posted by: bucinka8 | December 15, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I exist in a wide network of cultural, social, economic, and ethnic make up. In conversation, I have yet to find the support for repeal of DADT this article and the poll figures. I suggest, it is those with a specific agenda to make a lifestyle mandatory for all to accept. DADT has practical rationale to exist. Those with social/sexaulity issues outside of mainstream do not for a moment consider the ramifications of repeal.

Posted by: flameforest | December 15, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The top Marine is nothing but a bigot trying to disguise his homophobia. How about all soldiers who do not like serving with gays leave the service? Sounds like a fair solution to me.

Posted by: retabroad | December 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Eight in ten say it should be repealed; ask those enlightened individuals if they would give up all privacy to endure the military environment lifestyle? My guess is those "evolved" societal elitists would not.
The "poll" that the DoD political hacks run and take cover behind was neither accurate in the questions asked nor the analysis of the responses. DoD "fixed" the data to get the Administration's desired result.

Posted by: pielusztcontractor | December 15, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

If the homophobe political factions have lost even the WASPs, then they have lost the argument. The "dishonesty required" Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is done for. Put a fork in it.

Homosexuality isn't a crime and it isn't a choice...nor can it reasonably be considered "unnatural", since it also occurs across a wide swath of nature, in many species other than human beings, including other primates. What occurs in nature is, by definition, "natural".

Religious and cultural prejudices die hard, and many, perhaps most heterosexuals will likely always feel some squeamishness about homosexuality, in consequence of our own cultural conditioning... but its past time for our society to get over it.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | December 15, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I have served in the military for almost 12 years. I have served with people that everybody knew was gay and as long as they did their job, IT DIDN'T MATTER. There are many straight people who could be booted from the service to much greater benefit than denying the ability to serve to a segment of society that's willing to subject themselves to significant misery for the privilege of dying for their country.

Fundamentally, are we the United States of America, where all men are (theoretically) created equal or are we not? The global perception of our hypocrisy is far more damaging to our interests than a handful of gay soldiers captured on the battlefield will be.

Posted by: lt_dt | December 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

where did they take the poll, San Francisco or Dupont Circle. wasn't any wheres near. for such a miniscule percentage of USA population they seem to carry more weight than the majority of US citizens who say no to DADT

Posted by: robertbeaver | December 15, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

where did they take the poll, San Francisco or Dupont Circle. wasn't any wheres near me or my friends. for such a miniscule percentage of USA population they seem to carry more weight than the majority of US citizens who say no to DADT

Posted by: robertbeaver | December 15, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I have young (straight) relatives serving in various branches of the military. Not only do they support the repeal of DADT, but they have pointed out something to me that I haven't thought about before. It takes a lot of strength of character and desire to serve one's country for a person who is gay to enlist in the military. My young relatives see gays in the military as a complete non-issue. What they do care about it that the person serving alongside them is a strong and competent person.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 15, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Again the top political leaders who never served a day in the military are about to cave into the whims of a very small number of gay individuals who want to serve in the military - yet maintain a homosexual lifestyle. These do-gooders have no clue what a crisis this would create.
It will never work. I'm totally against it and so is every other combat veteran.
To allow qays into fighting units would be devasting to the fighting spirit of a combat unit. Anyone who thinks differently is probably a homosexual still in hiding.
It would be a great thing to only allow enlisted veterans to decide this issue and rest assured that if that happened all the gays would be back home waving multi colored flags and wearing lipstick. The Marines don't want them and neither do I.

Posted by: ISWEDE | December 15, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Again the top political leaders who never served a day in the military are about to cave into the whims of a very small number of gay individuals who want to serve in the military - yet maintain a homosexual lifestyle. These do-gooders have no clue what a crisis this would create.
It will never work. I'm totally against it and so is every other combat veteran.
To allow qays into fighting units would be devasting to the fighting spirit of a combat unit. Anyone who thinks differently is probably a homosexual still in hiding.
It would be a great thing to only allow enlisted veterans to decide this issue and rest assured that if that happened all the gays would be back home waving multi colored flags and wearing lipstick. The Marines don't want them and neither do I.

Posted by: ISWEDE | December 15, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Why shouldn't they? Both men and women are allowed so why not homosexuals out or in the "closet"? Is someone saying that they are less than human; or less than American? As to Senator McCane, I would question to what degree his incarceration in North Vietnam affected his judgement on this point.

Posted by: JohnS-WRJ | December 15, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Gen Amos should retire now before he further disgraces his US Marine Corp by insulting Marines, that he believes anything could distract them from their military duties. Everyone thinks better of the Marine Corps evidently than its Commandant.

Truman dismissed MacArthur. It is time for Gen Amos to retire before further disgrace to the Corps.
He is no longer worthy to lead and should retire while he still has some dignity left.

Posted by: DecoratedVeteranOfficer | December 15, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

It is ironic that our Armed Forces, whose purpose is to protect our freedom and rights has historically been an offender. The DADT is a direct violation of the civil rights of our gay and lesbian citizens. Our military has discriminated against other minorities in the past such as African-Americans and women, and they have made policy changes regarding these groups.

This policy initially came about with the hope of stopping the discrimination, it had little effect and more than thirteen thousand servicemen and women have been unfairly discharged since its inception. It tacitly acknowledges that there is discrimination, but continues the course of civil rights violation against this honorable group of citizens, all the while asking that they lie by omission of the truth of their sexual orientation.

It takes time to bring about changes, and as Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates mentioned earlier this year in the American Forces Press Service, the process took five years to “overturn the ban to integrate blacks into the military.” Change is never easy, but we know that it is inevitable that we make changes when we recognize the wrong that we have been inflicting. We need to eliminate the DADT policy which violates the right of our gay and lesbian sons and daughters to serve their country honorably, just as we have justly acknowledged the rights of others.

It is time to stop the discrimination against the gay and lesbian minorities, and the polls in this report show that a majority in our country are ready for this change. As a mother of a gay man, it makes me feel hopeful that my son may have a little more freedom to pursue the American dream of the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: clelandk | December 15, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

It is ironic that our Armed Forces, whose purpose is to protect our freedom and rights has historically been an offender. The DADT is a direct violation of the civil rights of our gay and lesbian citizens. Our military has discriminated against other minorities in the past such as African-Americans and women, and they have made policy changes regarding these groups.

This policy initially came about with the hope of stopping the discrimination, it had little effect and more than thirteen thousand servicemen and women have been unfairly discharged since its inception. It tacitly acknowledges that there is discrimination, but continues the course of civil rights violation against this honorable group of citizens, all the while asking that they lie by omission of the truth of their sexual orientation.

It takes time to bring about changes, and as Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates mentioned earlier this year in the American Forces Press Service, the process took five years to “overturn the ban to integrate blacks into the military.” Change is never easy, but we know that it is inevitable that we make changes when we recognize the wrong that we have been inflicting. We need to eliminate the DADT policy which violates the right of our gay and lesbian sons and daughters to serve their country honorably, just as we have justly acknowledged the rights of others.

It is time to stop the discrimination against the gay and lesbian minorities, and the polls in this report show that a majority in our country are ready for this change. As a mother of a gay man, it makes me feel hopeful that my son may have a little more freedom to pursue the American dream of the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: clelandk | December 15, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

From:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144899/tax-issues-rank-top-priority-lame-duck-congress.aspx


Pass Estate Tax Cut: Very 56 -- Some 26 -- Not 17
Pass Income Tax Cut: Very 50 -- Some 31 -- Not 16
Extend Unemployment: Very 48 -- Some 28 -- Not 24
Ratify START: Very 40 -- Some 33 -- Not 21
Repeal DADT: Very 32 -- Some 24 -- Not 41
Pass DREAM Act: Very 31 -- Some 29 -- Not 38

From the looks of things, there are a lot of things that are at least somewhat important. Four items even have more people think it is Very Important versus Not Very Important, but the only one in *that* status that is NOT on the Tax Cut bill is the Start Treaty. DADT does not even rate that. Only two are seen by the majority as being Very Important, again in the Tax Cut Bill, and DADT is not only not above the threshold there, it is (as I previously mentioned) lower than those who think it is not important at all! I say it twice because the point has not seemed to set in!

So your poll should ask:

IF IT MATTERED...

Because in the big picture, it just has not got the juice. Pelosi is killing everything, because the Tax Cut will likely pass in January without her. DADT will be nothing by then.

The long and Short of it is this:

People would like you to get DADT repeal through, and it would be a NICE THING that it happens, but they really don't care that much. And screaming about it just turns more people off. What they do care about is the Tax Cuts. But they did not listen before November, so why should the Lame Ducks listen now, I guess.

Your agenda is the only thing they risk. Its not a big deal. So who cares? Do you REALLY care enough to kick Pelosi and Company in the teeth for obviously killing this? I didn't think so. It is just more Liberal Feel Good talk with no real substance. Even you could care less that SHE (Pelosi) is *really* killing everything. Loyal Liberalism is what is killing everything, but they have never been known to think very well in pragmatic matters, so this should come as no big suprise...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 15, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"The DADT is a direct violation of the civil rights of our gay and lesbian citizens."

Thanks for the sound-bite, clelandk. Sounds good to you I am sure, but WRONG!

Black is NOT a Behavior. Female is NOT a Behavior. Even Religion is NOT a Behavior (to those who have a Religion), so to compare LGBT *choices* in their Sexual Orientation and the Outward Unfettered Expression of BEHAVIOR to them to ENDORSE *all* such behavior, is WRONG! It is NOT the same as these other protected classes. They are *also* specifically addressed in the Constitution. GAY is most certainly NOT!

That all people should be treated decently, sure -- I agree. I buy that, even for Pedophiles and Mass Murdering Psycopaths. It does not mean I intend to expose people to those kinds of BEHAVIORS in inappropriate ways. That being GAY is all about behavior is something you only have to go to ONE "Gay Pride" Parade to get a VERY Graphic grasp of. If you don't understand THAT, you are BLIND!!!

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 15, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

OVER 75% OF AMERICANS WANT TO REPEAL DON'T ASK DON'T TELL.

REPUBLICANS STOP SHOVING YOUR BELIEFS DOWN THE THROATS OF US AMERICANS. HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT TO KEEP GIVING THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THE FINGER WHILE KEEPING YOUR JOB!!! AMERICANS WILL NOT FORGET YOUR BETRAYAL OF THEIR WILL! CAN'T WAIT TO THROW ALL YOU ANTI-AMERICAN REPUBLICANS OUT IN 2012!

Posted by: paulflorez | December 15, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I spent 27 years in the military, one of my kids is in the Marines now. And NOT STRAIGHT. Everyone in her unit knows who is gay and who is straight - no one cares.

I never cared who my co-workers slept with or loved, as long as it was a consenting adult. Let's all grow up. Gays and Lesbians have always been with us in uniform in the military (and doing as well as everyone else) - every veteran knows that.

Everyone deserves the chance to serve honorably - and we should THANK them. All of the services are disciplined and able to institute this change when ordered, just as they do everything else when ordered. In fact, at this point serving with openly gay and lesbian members is a non-issue in all the services - since the younger troops in all the services are, for the most part, out to their military friends and close associates - AND unit cohesion is just fine!

For those who think "GOD" condemns homosexuality - learn to read ancient Aramaic, don't rely on the manipulative translations available to the sheeple.

The Leviticus passage you constantly quote actually condemns sleeping with male PROSTITUTES only (sorry, but feel free to read it for yourself in the earliest available original texts [which are not really THAT early] - if you can read ancient Aramaic, they'll give you access). It doesn't condemn homosexual relationships. If you're going to quote the "Bible" - please try to learn what it really says. Don't be the average, uneducated Christian! Wishing Peace on Earth to all.

Posted by: MarinemomandAFretired | December 15, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

America is naive if people think that gays ahve not served in the military before this decade. They did not "come out" for fear of how they would be treated, both in military and civilian life - less we forget that part of our history. also, the military ahs two major tools to use that help determine if an individualis "fit for service": performance standards and code of conduct. I am a retired Army Reservist - yes, I served 20 years, am female and had my share of negative comments made about women's capability of serving in the military. And for those of you on a "high moral" ground, what about the women who get raped by straight men in the military - a major problem for this country - where are you on this issue? Remember, the military has stood the test of time based on performance standards and code of condut, which all soldiers must meet - men, women and gays. This is where our strength is, not in trying to impose a moral standard on people - leave morality to God. I believe He knows best.

Posted by: lboykin1 | December 15, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

The military has two very strong tools to deal with soldiers that have stood the test of time: meeting performance standards and adhering to the code of conduct. I would like to see those of you who inject morality into this decision raise your voices against straight soldiers who rape female soldiers. This is where the military needs help in correcting a "moral" problem.

Posted by: lboykin1 | December 15, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Clearly Cearbrook, you are not educated on the subject matter of which you hold such a strong opinion of. I suspect that you are not aware that much of the “behavior” that you are attaching to the gay/lesbian population is frequently practiced by people of the heterosexual community. You clearly have an issue on particular forms of behavior and perhaps you feel that people who perform those types of behaviors should be excluded from having the same basic rights of all Americans. I guess we should have cameras in every bed room to insure that we exclude those people!
As far as “Pedophiles and Mass Murdering Psychopaths” having equal rights, and been treated with decency … I don’t think so. These are criminal offenses of which if prosecuted, they would loose their rights.
Furthermore, on a continuum of human sexuality, being that everyone falls somewhere in between either strongly heterosexual or strongly homosexual, I feel (as many in the scientific community do) that those at the far ends of the spectrum have not made a “choice” to be what they are, who they are attracted to, or to whom they may fall in love with. I hope that this information may enlighten you, and that you may be able to relieve yourself of some of the hatred you ooze in your blog.

Posted by: clelandk | December 15, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Kids touring military museums and battlefields today can see right through the ubiquitous, cheesy slogans that anti-gay people plaster about for the credulous: "All give some. Some give all"; and "Freedom isn't free."

A lot of these kids aren't gay, and most of them who go on to serve will have openly gay colleagues. And they'll relate as little to the anti-gay bigots here as the bourbon industry execs in Kentucky relate to racist bigots of the 50s.

Posted by: falasifa | December 15, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

If this poll is correct and even 70% of white evangelicals say it is time to eliminate DADT, then I would say that the repeal will go through.

The last time I saw a poll so unified in high numbers from all sides of the spectrum was the polling of GWB 43 shortly after 9-11, an event that (temporarily) unified the country.

Posted by: bonncaruso | December 16, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse


A PRAYER FOR THE SAVING OF OUR NATION

O God, my Dear Heavenly Father, I Am That I Am, indeed, whose precious child I am, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I want you to know that I am grateful for this deeper understanding which you have given to me, regarding the origin of the homoerotic urge, that this comes from the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane which makes of the victim a sex slave of the demonic world, and moreover, that this controlling demonic presence follows the homosexual wherever he goes, and works to corrupt the integrity of the morals of everyone that he comes in contact with. Thank you for helping me to understand the danger that this black poisonous cloud of moral corruption poses to the very survival of America even as it relentlessly encroaches upon and consumes the minds of more and more Americans. To that end, O God, I ask you, again in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to please send Legions of Holy Angels now, Shining, Radiant, Noble and Pure, marching triumphantly throughout the nation, to cast out all homosexuals from the U.S. Military, from all positions within our National Security Establishment, and from every position of responsibility in whatever department of American life they have entered in with this corrupting demonic spirit, especially throughout the educational institutions of our land, kindergartens, primary, secondary schools, colleges and universities, and in every department of the mass media, and throughout all government institutions, local, state and federal. Especially the cleaning out of all local, state, and federal legislative bodies is essential. Deliver our nation O God from the horror of this dark shadow of moral insanity. Fully accepting the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, that which I ask of you, in his name, that you will do. I therefore accept it done right now with full power. Amen.

For those of you who understand that America stands, right at this moment, face to face with the fate of the City of Sodom, please add this prayer to your daily devotions. The survival of America requires it.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 16, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Why don't they just get it over with and repeal it! This should not be such a time-consuming issue when there are much bigger problems to solve!

What's the big deal? Whether gay or not, there is no problem unless someone makes unwanted sexual advances. Otherwise, everyone should be able to go about their business. Enough already!

Posted by: rme465 | December 16, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: BigFootObama "I believe anyone who's gay should be committed. They don't look normal, have a high incidence of suicide and are a menace to society with their filty habits and high risks for AIDS!"
----------------------
"Don't look normal"? Other than a rather small percentage on the far ends of the spectrum (very butch women/very flamboyant men), we look like everybody else. Statisticly 10% of the people you deal with everyday are gay or bisexual. We even have a hard time.

The "higher rate of suicide" is mostly because of people like you harassing us from the day we are born.

Being gay does cause a higher risk for anything. Rsiky behavior does. Stupid and risky doesn't have a sexual orientation. People who use IV drugs are significantly more "at risk" than your average homosexual.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | December 16, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

A PRAYER FOR OUR NATION
God, Goddess, Ancient Spirits and Beloved Dead,
I am grateful for your guidance and deeper understanding which you have given to me regarding the origin of human behavior and sexual behavior among men and women. That you have created a variety of attractions and a variety of pleasures. Thank you for showing me that for every act of love between two men or two women, can also be seen in heterosexual relationships. Thank you for showing me that demon’s and evil are in the hearts and minds of only those that choose to discriminate in the names of various Gods and Goddesses through out the ages. Please help those that that do not understand other religions, that there are many paths to the One and that no religion has a monopoly on any country. Please assist Christians that refer to God as Lord, that God is both male and female and to ignore the Devine Feminine will have them reincarnate until they understand this. Above all, thank you for giving gay men and women the courage to fight for our freedom.

Posted by: Jack_Green | December 16, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Why not ask everyone who is serving in the military and has served in the military how safe they would feel in a war situation with someone in a fox hole with him/her that it is known is gay/lesbian? I would rather be relying on someone I know is more interested in my life than sizing me up. I know that would not always be the case, but I don't want there to even be a possibility of sexual inappropriateness when my life is on the line.
Obama has been the worst thing to happen to the military and if this is repealed, you will have less qualified men and women enlisting and will find yourself in a position to want to draft again because of the shortfall.
Our country's defense should mean more to us than someone's sexuality and being able to serve openly when one's sexuality is a choice. One's skin color is not a choice (critics say they are the same). They are not - skin color is not a behavior and sexuality is b/c it is ACTED upon. Why should I be forced to have someone else's decision forced upon me when it can effect whether I live or die?

Posted by: palmbayflorida | December 17, 2010 6:36 AM | Report abuse

Reality Show a Must for Trailblazing Representatives

235 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the House of Representatives set the course yesterday for where no US policy has ever 'gone before': repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and progressively standing-up for 'Open Homosexuality'.

Americans demand justice, and I say that everyone who charts a new course, i.e. these politicians, should first lead the way and taste every morsel before passing on the plate to others. After all, ‘what's good for the goose is good for the gander' as the old saying goes.

Where could the reality show take place and how would the rules be defined? Well, absent the debate, there are no rules if everything is 'open'. There are cultural landmarks and institutions that already are a snapshot of the future. So, let's let these 250 politicians, the 9 who did-not-vote-cowards and the similarly minded Honorable Senators lead this charge into the valley of death.

The only ground rule for these politicians is your anonymity; the homosexuals in the reality show won’t know who you are. Political contestants lose all privileges. Badges of honor must be set aside so that they become just like the lowest ranked military private. You won't be recognized, you won't be with the group - you'll be alone so that you can experience real homosexual life. This is necessary since the truth may not be seen if you're insulated from reality.

First, your initiation involves participation in a Gay Pride parade. The willing, unrecognized political leader has a dog collar with lease placed around the neck and any other 'leathers' that the prideful want to use. You’ll be led around to experience all the homosexual pleasures. You can go 'behind closed doors' as the Charlie Rich song goes. You can 'let your hair hang down' and you can find that you're 'glad that you're a man/woman' because now you will know 'what goes on behind closed doors'. If you're still smiling and proud of your political leadership and advocacy of homosexuality, then you're on to step 2.

Step 2 is found in any prison among the segregated inmates. As the new 'Undercover Boss' to this leading edge political thought, men will be deprived of their wives and families and women of their husbands and families. You are now free to become boyfriends and girlfriends to this captive audience. Sodomy is an important part of homosexual life, so you should be intimately acquainted with its give and take.

Now, the last issue is how long you should be required to research the policy before you affect the lives of millions of others? Minimum military service is 2 years. Though you should be required to taste the policy in full before you force it on others, realistically your schedules do not excuse you for the duration. However, since you're charting the course of the future, you should at least be required to invest your recess periods for these mini 'boot camps'. You don't have years or months to fully understan

Posted by: striderrt | December 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company