Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:30 AM ET, 12/ 3/2010

'Don't ask, don't tell': At hearing, service chiefs say change would be difficult

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 2:33 p.m. ET

Ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy will be divisive and more difficult than a new Pentagon report suggests, according to the top commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Their views provided arguments likely to be seized upon by Republican lawmakers and social conservatives who back keeping the military's gay ban and could keep enough moderate lawmakers from endorsing plans to end it in the coming week.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman, the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commandants of the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard testified Friday before the Armed Services Committee, providing less sanguine opinions about ending the ban on gays in the military.

Despite reservations, all six service chiefs said they support ending "don't ask, don't tell" either now or in the future. They also agreed that Congress should end the ban to ensure a smooth transition and proper training instead of leaving the decision to federal judges that could end the ban immediately.

Signaling a willingness to eventually end the ban, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a vocal critic of the Pentagon report and efforts to do that this year, agreed with the chiefs that the law should be overturned.

And in a key pickup for repeal efforts, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, said he supports ending the ban so long as the military properly prepares to make the change. He joins Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who have said they would support ending the ban if Democrats permitted Republicans to introduce amendments to the defense bill.

Gen. James F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, was most critical, warning that integrating openly gay and lesbian troops into combat units "has strong potential for disruption and will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat." He cited a study quoted in the Pentagon report that found most Marine combat soldiers are opposed to or concerned about ending the ban.

"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan," Amos said. "We asked for their opinions, and they gave them to us. Their message to me is that the potential exists for disruption to the successful execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time."

Ending the ban would be more difficult for Army combat units than suggested by the study, according to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff. The Army would have to closely monitor how officers "wrestle with implementing repeal simultaneously with the other challenges facing them after nine years of war." Allowing service members to be open about their homosexuality, however, would not keep the Army from carrying out its various missions, he said.

The views of Amos and Casey contrast sharply with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who told the Senate panel Thursday that the military can and should end the ban. President Obama also backs ending "don't ask, don't tell" through legislation this year.

As for when the change should be made, Amos said the military should wait until "my Marines are not singularly, tightly focused on what they're doing in a very deadly environment. This is serious business for them. I think it will be repealed eventually. I just ask for the opportunity to do it with my forces when they're not singularly focused."

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz was more direct, suggesting the military wait until 2012, "while initiating training and education efforts soon after you take any decision to repeal." The Air Force would successfully implement any changes ordered by Congress, but lawmakers should not act now because of current combat pressures on the force, he said.

Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sounded a more positive tone, suggesting that implementing a new policy would be manageable, "even during the high tempo of wartime operations." Transparency and careful training would be crucial, he said.

The chiefs of the Navy and Coast Guard, Adm. Gary Roughead and Adm. Robert Papp, signaled their services could move forward with ending the ban with little risk to readiness and operations. But Roughead raised concerns with how the military would train the forces and said the Pentagon study did not fully account for the costs associated with expanded benefits for gay troops.

Repeating requests made Thursday by Gates and Mullen, the chiefs said Congressional action on the matter is critical.

"Precipitous repeal is not - it is not - where your Armed Forces want to be," Schwartz said.

The Federal Eye is provided live coverage of the hearing via Twitter:

By Ed O'Keefe  | December 3, 2010; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Congress, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Eye Opener: Obama on LeBron; EPA boss takes on the GOP; more bad graves at Arlington; FCC wants cell phone bill fixes
Next: Obama: No military pay freeze

Comments


In an all volunteer military 30% saying they have a problem serving with homosexuals is significant since it represents several hundred thousand service members. What the report fails to discuss is the key issue; readiness. Do they estimate that the policy change will result in a net decrease, increase or no change in the number of young people willing to serve their nation? The military is our nation’s life insurance policy, not a social experiment. Make sure any change benefits military readiness and isn’t simple pandering to a very small minority for political reasons.

Posted by: nuke41 | December 3, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

If it ain't broken.......

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"If it ain't broken......."

It's broken.

I can understand some of the concerns of the Marines and Army given that already over 10% of recruits need waivers for physical and/or mental and/or emotional health issues, excessive stupidity, histories of substance abuse, and/or histories of criminal conduct. How can we risk losing some of this splendid talent pool if we allow service by people who don't need waivers but who happen to be gay?

Posted by: edallan | December 3, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Evidently they believe the American military is less capable of fully integrating gays and lesbians than are allies have been.

Posted by: FauxReal | December 3, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: edalla: It's broken.
----------------------------------------
BZZZT! Wrong. We have the most effective large fighting force in the world. The ONLY thing broken is the IQs of those who wish the military to be a social lab experiment. Go fight in a combat unit and if you survive come back and lecture how it is broken.

Posted by: illogicbuster | December 3, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

When the Supreme Court has said forever that Congress controls the military, why would any commander fear that the courts will end DADT if Congress doesn't?

Which five members of the Supreme Court will reject two centuries of law and say that Congress does not run the army?

Four won't do it. Gotta be five.

DADT is a very generous compromise that permits gays and lesbians to serve while not violating the privacy of other soldiers and recruits.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

To hear these 4 stars - we should not have integrated "Negroes" into the ranks in 1947 -- too many Southerners whose great grandfathers fought for Robert E Lee objected. And we should not have let women ever be in command of men. (The Christian Bible can be interpreted to mean that blacks are descended from Ham and are inferior to whites, and that women should be subordinate and always deferential to men. Some of the same BS that is being used to justify discriminating against gays). I'm retired from Army after 30 years and I'm embarrassed by what I hear GEN Casey saying. AS for the Marines -- they are great fighters but are not very tolerant of anyone who isn't identical to them.

Posted by: humbleandfree | December 3, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

How can we risk losing some of this splendid talent pool if we allow service by people who don't need waivers but who happen to be gay?

Posted by: edallan | December 3,

This isn't the place for anothe liberal social experiment.

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

It's depressing to think about the social conservatives, the Tea Party, and corporations taking over our country. We'll end up a nation of two classes -- the top 5% elite/corporations and the rest of us barely surviving. The supression of society and "party purity" standards we will undergo will rival those of even Nazi Germany. This dog-and-pony show being put on by McCain is just the tip of the ice berg.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | December 3, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

It's depressing to think about the social conservatives, the Tea Party, and corporations taking over our country. We'll end up a nation of two classes -- the top 5% elite/corporations and the rest of us barely surviving. The supression of society and "party purity" standards we will undergo will rival those of even Nazi Germany. This dog-and-pony show being put on by McCain is just the tip of the ice berg.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 |


Such ignorance, and you dorks still didn't get the message on election day!

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Totally agree: not the place for a social experiment.

But it's DADT that is the experiment.

Gays and lesbians are there and have been since the birth of American fighting forces, LET ALONE since 1994. (This is no longer a debate about whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military - that was two decades ago.)

The policy that forces them to hide who they are is the social experiment. It should go.

(And if anyone pulls the "Go fight in a combat unit . . ." bs on me, you will be in a world of rhetorical hurt. Man, I hate that weak junk.)

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

What are we going to have? "Equal Opportunity" for all gays and lesbians ...just add another "special group" to the many others? As we continue down this liberal path to hell we water down competence of the force. If you're openly gay then you get promoted - all in the name of "diversity" and "reflecting our values." Combat (real combat, not the pretend combat that Admiral Mullen had floating offshore in Vietnam) is won by trust and strong teams at the small unit level - how can that exist if the team finds the behavior of 4% to be repugnant and morally reprehensible? Just another example of how the REMFs in DOD shaft the guys downrange all in the name of political correctness and advancing themselves. Makes me sick!

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | December 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Social experiment? Give me a break. If anything, DADT is a social experiment--let's see what happens if we allow homosexuals to serve as long as they pretend not to be gay.

It has always seemed strange to me that the military is able to protect our freedoms but unable to practice them.

If that's the case, perhaps we should EXPAND DADT to include other divisive issues like politics and religion. I'm not saying the military personell should not be allowed to have religions or political beliefs--just that, under and expanded DADT, they should not be allowed to express those beliefs. This would certainly help to create unit cohesiveness, as everyone could assume that everyone agreed about everything because no one would be allowed to discuss anything. Problem solved. You're welcome.

Posted by: writinron | December 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

There has always been gays in the military,in the work place, where ever. But a gay playing the openly gay role will create major problems. I know that when in the showers I would feel totally comfortable if there were known openly gay men showering with me. Don't misunderstand I am not that appealing but still the idea would bother me tremendously. Probably similar to a woman taking a shower with the men. It's an invitation for a lot of trouble. I have seen gays beaten on construction sites , on the streets and in bars etc. Why would they want to play limp wrist

Posted by: vageorge | December 3, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The good 'ole boy fat generals who want to keep DADT will just have stay in step with the rest of the country and start defending freedom for all of it's citizens- If not they are free to resign and let more qualified and true leaders step up and replace them. If they stay on they will be forced into learning to use more effective leadership skills than divisive homophobic fear-mongering and scapegoating! What a poor example these fat old generals are to our citizen soldiers!

Posted by: 10bestfan | December 3, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

There has always been gays in the military,in the work place, where ever. But a gay playing the openly gay role will create major problems. I know that when in the showers I would feel totally comfortable if there were known openly gay men showering with me. Don't misunderstand I am not that appealing but still the idea would bother me tremendously. Probably similar to a woman taking a shower with the men. It's an invitation for a lot of trouble. I have seen gays beaten on construction sites , on the streets and in bars etc. Why would they want to play limp wrist -------------------------------

I meant totally uncomfortable!!!!

Posted by: vageorge | December 3, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

humbleandfree:

There is no Biblical support for the notion that Noah's son, Ham, was the ancestor of African peoples. It was a racist misinterpretation designed to prop up slavery.

The issue here is not whether homosexuals can serve -- there are many serving now -- but whether they can be open about their sexual orientation. This would not be an issue in the civilian world where people can keep their distance while still respecting the right of someone to engage in homosexual sex. It is an issue in the military because soldiers, sailors, and airmen are often cramped into tight quarters with little privacy. Many people are not comfortable being forced into such a situation with someone who might be sexually attracted to him or her, and would rather not know about it. I am a hetrosexual who would prefer not to take a shower with someone who is openly homosexual. It would be awkward to say the least. The military does not give you the choice in these matters.

Posted by: InTheMiddle | December 3, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I guess the old military expression of Drop and give me 25 will be changing to something new

Posted by: vageorge | December 3, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

There is a choice here. Congress repeals it, and the military will be able to establish a gameplan and deadline of their own choosing or the courts repeal it and it will be instant.

DADT is going to be repealed one way or another! The courts are giving Congress an opportunity to get it done. Lets hope they make that choice!

Posted by: vaoceangal | December 3, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

DADT is going to be repealed one way or another!
Posted by: vaoceangal

And the moon is made of cheese.

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

This debate is juts one more sign of =the reluctance of Congress to take a stand on anything because it may cost them re-election. They don't care about the long-term costs as long as they are comfortable for the next four to six years.

Posted by: djmolter | December 3, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Well if change is going to happen regardless, the government could save a lot of money!! Eliminate separate bathrooms and showers in all public buildings!

Posted by: vageorge | December 3, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

For those complaining that the military isn't the place for a social experiment, they need to shut up and go read the history of the military in the U.S.; especially post-WWII. Immigrants, blacks, women, you name it; we've ALWAYS been involved in social experiments.

And not much of an experiment. Gays are everywhere in civilian life. Ever heard of negative effects of gay integration on businesses, local, state, or national governments? No? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY.

You know what negative effects there are? It's 99.9% from the anti-gay people. And the few caused by gays are for behavior that's illegal for anyone to conduct.

I'm about as straight hetero as you can get; and I wouldn't have the slightest problem putting my uniform back on, grabbing a gun and heading for a trench or foxhole with a gay guy at my side. Seems to me that anyone that afraid of a gay person has a pathetic lack of personal courage and shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

Posted by: mhoust | December 3, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

For those complaining that the military isn't the place for a social experiment, they need to shut up and go read the history of the military in the U.S.; especially post-WWII. Immigrants, blacks, women, you name it; we've ALWAYS been involved in social experiments.
Posted by: mhoust

Comparing Apples and Oranges. Nice spin though! CHEERS!!!!

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

@EagleH,

Do you have anything besides exclamation points to back your argument that it's "apples and oranges?"

The report itself compares these instances of change.

Or did you not read the report?

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Gates is a career bureaucrat who has been known to promote the desires of the administration in power to the point of falsifying intelligence. Mullin is follwing along. Thankfully the service chiefs are showing the stones needed to resist this repeal of DADT. The survey was worded to result in what the DOD wanted it to say.

One of my concerns is allowing the partners of the newly uncloseted service member the same benefits as us normal married people. I read somewhere today that benefits will not be granted but that will only give rise to litigation. How embarrassing for the Obama campaign promise, supported by the DOD top brass, to be so strongly opposed by the chiefs and many others.

Posted by: idctrainer | December 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

@EagleH,

Do you have anything besides exclamation points to back your argument that it's "apples and oranges?"

The report itself compares these instances of change.

Or did you not read the report?

Posted by: stevie_in_gp

We are dealing with someone's sexual preference. We are dealing with someone who could be a man but acts very feminate.There is NOTHING normal about being gay! YOU DO THE MATH....IDIOT!!!

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Eaglehornet, from your comments and those of some people who appear to support you, I assume that had you been around when the "social experiment" of desegregating the Armed Forces took place, you would have thought that it was wrong that white guys should have to take orders from blacks or Asians who may outrank them and, if officers, even call them "Sir" or "Ma'am."

Assuming that you actually are a veteran (I am not), then you presumably know that had it not been for the talents of the flagrantly gay Baron von Steuben, the American Revolution would have been crushed and we might all be speaking English today. I'm sorry that you feel that it is better for our troops in combat settings, volunteers all, to do without interpreters able to communicate with local people than to manage to accept an interpreter who happens to be gay. I'm sorry also that you feel that should they be ambushed because they weren't aware of local conditions, it is better for some to die than have their lives saved by a medic who happens to be gay.

This is not a personal attack. This is simply the clear implication of your posts.

Posted by: edallan | December 3, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

All right! We have our first all-caps "IDIOT!" remark.

Thanks for playing, EagleH.

Men acting effeminately in the military is not one of the major challenges with repeal. It's just your straw-man fear.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

By all means, let us respect our Marines' bigotry.

Posted by: MsJR | December 3, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The majority of these comments completely ignore the fact that 'they' are already there. They're there! They are in combat...they are being maimed and killed...and yes...they are even taking showers alongside the macho men.

No doubt it is men who are insecure about their own sexuality/sexual prowess that are most threatened by repeal. This fear further reveals that feminization in this country remains a lowly trait.

This is very much a generational issue that will be seen as a mystery to future generations.

Posted by: FactChecker1 | December 3, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry also that you feel that should they be ambushed because they weren't aware of local conditions, it is better for some to die than have their lives saved by a medic who happens to be gay.

This is not a personal attack. This is simply the clear implication of your posts.

Posted by: edallan

Hey kook, the soldiers in the field are very against the repeal. GET OVER IT!!!

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Not all Marines are bigoted, MsJR. (I dare say most are not.) Don't tar us all with this brush.

Some of the concerns are legitimate. It does not mean they can't be addressed appropriately. It's time to do so.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Men acting effeminately in the military is not one of the major challenges with repeal. It's just your straw-man fear.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp

Sorry butt pirate, but your preverted views are not welcomed in the military. You can cry to Piglosi and your Messiah all you want, but at the end of the day, you que ers will have to face the facts that you picked the wrong team to join.

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"This isn't the place for anothe liberal social experiment"

Like it wasn't in 1948 to integrate African Americans, which over 3/4ths of the military objected to?

Or letting women into the Service Academies in the 1970's, which the military hierarchy was steadfastly against (Gen Clark of USAFA said it would lead to pregnancies, abortions, and the destruction of good order and discipline...).

This isn't about a "social experiment," it's about the basic principles of the Constitution, which is what service members are sworn to protect and defend.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 3, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Here's a lucid article on how repealing DADT will weaken the US military:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/repealing-dont-ask-will-weaken-us-military_520652.html

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | December 3, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Who are you talking to, dude? You don't know me.

Calling a Marine, Iraq vet, with 9+ years of service, names based on an internet comments discussion? Weak, weak sauce.

(My "perverted" views were very welcome in the military. Had some really good discussion with friends and co-workers on this issue. Even when they disagreed with me, none of them were so childish and bigoted as you.)

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't ask, don't tell.
Don't ask, don't tell.
Don't ask, don't tell.
Since 1994, 14,000 service members have been expelled under the policy. Just how many were expelled for Asking? How many told without being Asked? What ever happened to "Don't ask?"

Posted by: scottilla | December 3, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about a "social experiment," it's about the basic principles of the Constitution, which is what service members are sworn to protect and defend.

Posted by: kreuz_missile |

Coz why, a California judge said so? lol

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | December 3, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

DADT discharges comprise about 0.33% of all involuntary discharges. And 50% of DADT discharges are women who aren't permitted to serve in combat. All of which means DADT has virtually no impact on the combat readiness of the military.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"Admiral Gary Roughhead"!! supports gays in the military!

Really, Miami Herald?? REALLY!!?? hahaha

The obvious thing in all this - men and women are kept separate because, well, when they're together they happen to, oh, I don’t know…”bang”, shall we say? Men are not allowed to shower and bunk with women because they just might happen to like what they see, ogle them, even attempt to woo and do what humans do. Why would it be any different for a gay service member? And why wouldn’t a straight service member have the right to feel uncomfortable with that? Does any honest person really believe a gay dude in a shower with twenty fit, young men doesn’t find something about that heavenly? Put me in a shower with twenty young fit women and I’d enjoy the HELL out of that. Any straight man would! No different for a gay man in the shower. I’ll sign up at the nearest gym if they had an open shower policy where women couldn’t object to a man’s presence. That doesn’t make me disgusting, or a jerk. It makes me a straight man. No less than it would be fitting for a gay man to enjoy the company of people he is sexually attracted to. Such behavior would be completely natural, which is precisely why it would also be inappropriate.

Posted by: cartmaneric | December 3, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic wrote: :DADT is a very generous compromise that permits gays and lesbians to serve while not violating the privacy of other soldiers and recruits."
______________________

This is the most perverted spin on this issue I've ever heard. It's the gay and lesbian soldiers who are disrespected with DADT.

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic wrote: "DADT is a very generous compromise that permits gays and lesbians to serve while not violating the privacy of other soldiers and recruits."
______________________

This is the most perverted spin on this issue I've ever heard. It's the gay and lesbian soldiers who are disrespected with DADT.

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Why would they want to play limp wrist
Posted by: vageorge

_________________________
What does that even mean? Gay soldiers are just as tough, strong and professional (or more so) than straight soldiers. Your bigotry should not decide military policy.

Posted by: jake14 | December 3, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The arguments I have seen over this issue are driving me nuts. I am a former JAG (separated 2 years ago; served a tour in Iraq) and the fallacies being used to justify keeping it in place are driving me nuts.

"Social experiment" The military integrated in 1947, well before 1954's Brown v. Board of Ed. which abolished segregation in the civilian world.

"Giving gays preferential treatment"
This is BS. All military advancement is based on merit (although there is some brown nosing; no different then anywhere else in society). The preferential treatment they want is being able to have a picture of their spouse/significant other in their locker/on their desk without it being a crime. They want to be able to talk about their weekend plans (i.e. I've got a date or my spouse/significant other are going to the movies not graphic details about their sexual escapades (which is talked about a fair share by straight servicemembers) without it being a crime. As Admiral Mullins said he wants to stop the hypocracy inherent in the service (Integrity first-unless you are gay then lie (by omission) about it so you can serve your country).

"Disruption of Combat Missions/Discomfort of Deployed Troops"
I've had to deal with sexual assault in the AOR. I've dealt with women who have been intimidated by those who they have served with because they have received unwanted advances or inappropriate comments/oogling. Additionally, just because gays would serve openly; General Order 1 isn't going to go away (No sex in the deployed environment).

"Too Costly"
I had to do a homosexual discharge board that was a waste of time, money, and resources. If DADT hadn't been in place, the case would have been simple misconduct and ended at that.

As for implementation; you have a JAG go to every unit with a copy of the UCMJ and point out the harassment article and make it clear; degrade someone beacuse of orientation and it is the same as if you degrade their gender, ethnicity, or religion. You'll face an Article 15 or courts-marital. End of speech.

"The Servicemembers may not like it"
Secretary Gates summed it up best. Troops don't get referendums on how the military is managed. We aren't ask if we want to deploy; how long our tours are; if we want to be stop/lossed. You get your orders and you execute them. You don't follow orders, you will be in trouble. It really is that simple.

Another comment summed it up great; to make DADT fair and rational would require extending it to heterosexuals (can't reveal you're married or seeing anyone) religious lines (eliminate the chaplin's corps and keep your beliefs to yourself), and political beliefs (for which there are numerous regulations).

If history has taught us anything, the military adapts to change quite well. With all the threats out there, why should we be getting rid of people who help confront those threats simply because of personal lifestyle choices which harm none?

Posted by: jabacevi | December 3, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

EagleHornet1969 wrote: "We are dealing with someone who could be a man but acts very feminate."
______________________

"Feminate"? There is no such word.

NOW who's the "IDIOT"?

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"Coz why, a California judge said so? lol"

... and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that DADT applied broadly was unconstitutional -- a decision that the BUSH Administration chose not to appeal -- and a Washington State judge on remand to determine whether given the decision of the Circuit Court a particular discharge was legitimate (this Republican-appointed judge, whose prior ruling for discharge was overturned by the Circuit Court, determined that it was the discharge under DADT that mangled unit cohesion, NOT the fact that this literal "poster woman" for Air Force nurses was gay.)

As things stand now, under the best/worst of circumstances, the courts have ruled that for a discharge under DADT to be constitutionally valid, it is necessary to prove that the specific individual's sexual orientation has caused actual harm to "unit cohesion." Simply being gay is not enough.

As noted, the BUSH Administration did NOT appeal this ruling, which therefore, in my understanding, is final and definitive for all service members who have been serving now, in the past, and in the future in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. Which represents a VERY large number of people.

I know that there are still some people who think that schools, housing, jobs, etc. should be segregated -- after all, in 2004 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep the provisions against interracial marriage in the state constitution, even though they had been declared unconstitutional 3 decades before.

But there's a very good reason why the Secretary of Defense and the chiefs prefer the inevitable repeal to be done in a way that they can manage than, potentially, on a timeframe mandated by the courts, which are VERY familiar with the realities of "all deliberate speed."

Posted by: edallan | December 3, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The service chiefs of staff and USMC Commandant are NOT the "commanders" of their respective services. You play into Sen McCain's hands by equating those officers with actual commanders within their services.

Posted by: MilitaryCommonSense | December 3, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey JAG - Loved your television show. What recourse would a straight service member have if he reported feeling "uncomfortable" with the behavior of a gay service member. Conversely, what recourse would a gay service member have if he felt "uncomfortable" with a straight service-member? Would they be treated equally? And please no mamby-pamby "They'd have to get over it" answer. In a work place someone claiming "discomfort" in an age of sexual harassment cases isn't something any boss merely dismisses as some "get over it" instance. It’s almost always the beginning of a serious episode in the work-place.

Posted by: cartmaneric | December 3, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

cartmaneric wrote: 'I’ll sign up at the nearest gym if they had an open shower policy where women couldn’t object to a man’s presence. That doesn’t make me disgusting, or a jerk. It makes me a straight man.'

Unfortunately, it makes you a straight man with the emotional IQ of a 13 year old. But maybe you are 13 years old. The fact that you can only focus on the showers is very telling.

One-third of the women in the armed services have reported being harrassed and or outright assaulted by their fellow soldiers. It seems the people we should really fear out there are the straight men.

Posted by: FactChecker1 | December 3, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

What the heck.......are we there to fight or have sex? Are gays less likely to fight ? No. Then who cares? Only someone who is insecure about his own sexuality, would care.

Posted by: fishinfool | December 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused about the issue of showering with gay men and women. If you're not looking at them, how do you know if they're looking at you?

I've shared a barracks with other women before DADT and I can tell you, I wasn't interested in anyone's sex life. Quite frankly, it just wasn't my business.

Posted by: zzishate@yahoo.com | December 3, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

cartmaneric:

Either person in your hypothetical would have the same recourse that exists in the sexual harrassment realm today; report it up the chain of command. The offending individual would be counseled by their commander on what is and isn't appropriate behavior. If it persists, an investigation would be launched which could lead to punitive measures.

Gay individuals making unwanted advances on a straight person is no different than heteros who make unwanted advances on people. The system is already in place.

Posted by: jabacevi | December 3, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

This is the most perverted spin on this issue I've ever heard. It's the gay and lesbian soldiers who are disrespected with DADT.

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

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

Sure, it's a truth you haven't seen before, but it is the truth. And everything normal may seem perverted to you, I agree.

Gays and lesbians cannot control who they fall in love with. We all know that. That's why no one hates them for being who they are.

Of course, when a gay says a straight man can awaken one morning and discover he is gay, then that's enlightenment. But when a preacher says a gay can awaken one morning to discover he's straight, then that's hate speech.

Anyway, as unpopular as it is, the fact is even heterosexuals have privacy rights. We can billet soldiers cheaply if we use non-private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas. We don't permit men in the women's areas and we don't permit women in the men's areas. Soldier do have an expectation of privacy from those who could become sexually or romantically attracted to them. That's why gay and lesbians were once not allowed at all.

DADT is this: if BLTGs pretend that they're straight, then straights will pretend that there are no BLTGs in the sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas.

If gays want to be honest about who they are, then straights must honestly assert their privacy rights. The Pentagon can billet openly serving BLTGs in the Waldorf Astoria, but they can't billet them with heterosexual soldiers.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to MilitaryCommonSense, Jabacevi, Edallen and the other folks who have responded calmly and rationally to the downright offensive comments and rhetorical questions of people like CartmanEric and EagleHornet1969. I would have been far less diplomatic--clearly, a lot of villages are missing their idiots!

Blasmaic, your blatant misuse of statistics is matched only by your misogyny. So it's OK with you to discharge all military women, since that doesn't affect combat readiness? REALLY?
And what percentage of military men would have to be discharged before you'd see a problem?

I am sure glad you're a defender of the current travesty--there's no way I'd want someone that ignorant advocating for repeal of DADT!

Posted by: DCSteve1 | December 3, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

@EagleHornet1969 "If it ain't broken......."

It wasn't "broken" when the services were segregated. It wasn't "broken" when women weren't allowed to serve alongside men in any capacity.

I don't think repealing the ban automatically means a certain percentage of gays and lesbians serving now are suddenly going to have a wildly outlandish coming out party the day it happens.

Posted by: MattTee1 | December 3, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

@writinron
There ARE restrictions on political speech in the military. Also, military personnel do not have the same Constitutional protections as citizens-at-large. For instance, double jeopardy is just fine in the military. This should be obvious by the fact DADT exists. It could not exist outside the military. Those wanting it repealed should face the fact: life in the military is VERY different. People were up in arms because they might have some stranger "touching their junk" at the airport. That is NOTHING compared to having to spend day and night for months on end in close contact with your co-workers. Also, when the military was required to integrate women, they did it by providing separate facilities. That was to prevent incidents of sexual misconduct. Where are those safeguards in the move to repeal DADT?

Posted by: chenvertjd | December 3, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

To repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a serious mistake that will have repercussions that Obama Democrat are not prepared to handle. Gen. Amos stated the problem precisely, “divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat”. Veterans of America protest and write Republicans in Congress.

Many Americans agree with Senator John McCain and support his claim against the survey. The findings should not be used by the Senate and warnings should be issued to the American people because the findings are not valid.

GOP challenge Obama’s repeal of DADT. If this government DADT survey were conducted by a college sophomore, the instructor would rate methods and questions unacceptable to validate any summary findings. Read the question relative to “ability to carry out mission” and the response categories. A response rate of 70% is invalid for little or no effect because the question also included mixed.

U.S. troops responded based on mixed effects on carrying out the mission? Openly gay in the military will have a significant impact on the chain of command required to be trained on accommodating openly gays and educating non gay troops. Gay rights for “open homosexuals coming out” represent a very small number in the armed forces; however, disproportionately requires massive and costly changes to military structure and operations.

The findings of the DADT survey were written and interpreted in political bias for a prescribed outcome that openly gay soldiers will cause little problems for the armed forces. Survey should provided answers to relevant questions such as would you object to sharing a room with an openly gay soldier. Would it make a difference if a member of your platoon was openly gay or DADT?

Responses from more experience soldiers with combat experience and lengthen of time in military service duty should be compared to new recruits and service time under a year. Experience provides a basis for a more realistic and reliable response.

Write Congress to challenge the result of the DADT survey and require testimony from certified research Ph.D.s to evaluate the methodology and validity of survey findings. What are the rights of heterosexuals to file lawsuits against the military for sexual harassment and violations of privacy perpetrated by openly gay soldiers?

Posted by: klausdmk | December 3, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

That this is an issue at this time with a crumbing economy and massive unemployment is appalling. It is not imperative that DADT be resolved at this time. Other issues should take priority and in anything other than politicians being condsiderd "politcally correct" it would.
People are dying in these wars and somehow sexual preference has become more important than the lives of our soldiers. How vile.

Posted by: sbeth1 | December 3, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

What is the basis for claiming that the survey was improperly conducted and the results misinterpreted?

That you disagree with those results?

It was conducted scientifically and in accordance with widely accepted standards. That is my understanding from all I have read and heard.

To believe the commenter above is to believe a lie, and to form an opinion based on his or her claims is bias, not objectivity.

I am one Marine vet who calls on Congress to repeal DADT.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

One man shows his love by inserting the male organ into the anus of another man. This is normal? This is what the think should be allowed to wear the American uniform?

Posted by: SSTK34 | December 3, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

That sexual orientation be an issue at this time is appaling. Being politically correct is the issue. The US has a crumbling economy, massive unemployment and should take priority over DADT.

Soldiers are dying and we worry about someone in a closet. What a load of crap.

Posted by: sbeth1 | December 3, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The DADT report and this article say it all: This is a generational issue.

Older people are less open minded. Younger people just don't care. Hell, even younger republicans consistently poll that the entire gay collection of topics (i.e.: DADT; gay marriage, etc.) are all non-issues.

So, unfortunately, some citizens civil rights will simply have to wait for more old people to die.

And 50 yrs from now people will say "What do you mean those guys weren't allowed to marry each other, or be in the military? That's dumb."

It must sting for gays now, but time and evolution will carry on regardless. Its inevitable.

Posted by: AnonPoster | December 3, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Relax. The idea that important stuff is being missed while Congress does the DADT hearings is just a canard for people who don't want it repealed.

They're multi-taskers, people, with huge staffs, and the hearings are part of an important defense bill.

(And how vile that people cynically use calls to "remember the dying soldiers!" to cloak their political views.)

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The few. The proud. The too chicken to defend America if they have to do it fighting next to a gay dude.

Posted by: Len_RI1 | December 3, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@Len,

Pleasepleaseplease do not respond to bigotry from outside (or even inside) the services by slamming the entire population of one of them.

There is a diversity of viewpoints on this issue within the Marine Corps community writ-large.

(Man, how did I ever become a spokesman for my service on this thread? I guess I just feel strongly about the Corps and about this issue.)

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I am basically indifferent to DADT, but if you are wary of implementing repeal, isn't it infinitely better to legislate repeal and establish how it will be accomplished rather than just have a judge order repeal one day out of the blue?

If you legislate repeal, you have control of the process rather than have that control taken away by the courts. I can't believe McCain and the rest of his bunch don't get that.

Posted by: edismae | December 3, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

God bless those in uniform. Without you, we would be nothing. BUT: Your job is to take orders, not to make policy. You volunteered to work under that premise. We ALL know that the day enlisted soldiers are given choices regarding when, where and with whom they will serve is the day the whole thing implodes. Military policy is determined by its CIVILIAN leadership. It's then up to military brass to figure out the best way to IMPLIMENT said policies. Top brass doesn't truly have a say in policy, and enlisted soldiers merely follow orders. This is how (and the only way) it works. When the Commander in Chief (today that's Pres. Obama) says jump, the Joint Chiefs ask "how high", top mil. brass figures out how to get to that determined height, and the soldiers shout "Yes, Sir!" A beautifuly simple arraingement that has yet to utterly fail us. I'm suprised to see, after attempting a presidential campaign based largely on his military record, that Sen. McCain has completely forgotten the most basic tenants of military functionality.

Posted by: KJR1 | December 3, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Repeal it now. The services will act like adults, do what they swore to uphold (the Constitution) and, they will adapt and improvise. Those opposed can leave at the end of their enlistment, or resign their commissions. If you can't handle it, and you are not now serving, don't enlist. This will happen. Stop the excuses. If you've served, or are now serving, you know you've served with gay folks without a problem. It's the 21st century.

Posted by: jckdoors | December 3, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse


The repeal argument is; “they are there already” and “it’s the way they are”. That’s such a low standard of behavior that once applied virtually any behavior can seek acceptance also. The next group I see up at bat are the polygamists; if little Johnny can have two Mom’s why cant he have five?

Posted by: nuke41 | December 3, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I spent 30 years as a Marine, only once did I consider not going the distance, 1993 before DADT became law. All junior enlisted troops live in close quarters ashore and afloat although the greatest pressures may be on combat units. I know GLBT don't like hearing their choice of life styles violates the morale values of many people, but it is what it is. Those Marines who can't reconcile living with homosexuals will vote with their feet and would be Marines will find other ways to serve the Country together with the blessing of their family members who were Marines. Semper Fidelis does not extend to compromising one's integrity or principles. Just think if Training and Education Command gets the training right, in one or two decades from now we can usher in a new chapter in USMC history as we celebrate our first openly gay Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps.

Posted by: GMnStoneRidge | December 3, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: KJR1: “You volunteered to work under that premise….the day enlisted soldiers are given choices regarding when, where and with whom they will serve is the day the whole thing implodes.”

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

Fair enough, but that premise only holds true for an all volunteer military for about 4 years from enactment, which is a standard term of enlistment or initial service commitment for officers. After those 4 years are up if 30% of the military population fails to reenlist or continue to serve as an officer and they aren’t replaced by an equal number of new enlisted members and officers willing to serve under those conditions the military breaks. If that happens then you better hope you aren’t draft age.

Posted by: nuke41 | December 3, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

30% of women in the military have reported sexual harassment. It looks to me like the straight men in the military have the problems. Not the gays.

Posted by: fishinfool | December 3, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

@nuke,

Do you think it's realistic to predict that concerns about openly gay folk in the military (the 30%) equates to a significant number (certainly doesn't have to be near 30% to be a crisis) of declined re-enlistments/resigned commissions?

Significant enough to "break" the forces?

See page 68 and after of the report for the discussion of questions about retention and recruiting.

My sense is that - while not an insignificant concern - this is an issue the report addressed in forming its conclusion that repeal is doable.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse


Blasmaic, your blatant misuse of statistics is matched only by your misogyny. So it's OK with you to discharge all military women, since that doesn't affect combat readiness? REALLY?
And what percentage of military men would have to be discharged before you'd see a problem?

I am sure glad you're a defender of the current travesty--there's no way I'd want someone that ignorant advocating for repeal of DADT!

Posted by: DCSteve1 | December 3, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

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

The rules regarding women in combat positions were not crafted by me. When congress reinstated selective service, they didn't require women to register because woman don't serve in combat.

You have no basis for asserting that I espouse misogynistic views at all. If zero women are needed for combat, then discharges of women for DADT violations have zero impact. It's not rocket science.

I don't know how many men would need to be discharged for DADT violations before it would have an impact on combat readiness. However, since only 0.33% of all DISCHARGES are for DADT violations and half of all discharges are women, then 0.165% of all discharges are male DADT violations. I think one-sixteenth of one percent of all involuntary discharges is not significant.

Your basic point is that the right of a heterosexual soldier to privacy is not as great as the right of a BLTG soldier to identity. I disagree. I believe each person has equal rights.

By the way, 14 percent of the military is female, while 50 percent of the DADT discharges are female. That means it's really an issue of lesbians in the military, not a gays.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Well about 1/3 of Marines said they would leave service if DADT is repealed... That just might force a return of the draft!! It would be sweet if all the kids of the Progressives actually had to serve something other than themselves and they could write home about how great an openly gay Marine Corps is...

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | December 3, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Could you point me to that 1/3 of Marines statistic in the report, Capi?

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"serve something other than themselves"

LOL

Capitalist-1, you should see what Doris Kearns Goodwin said she experienced when she told her liberal friends that her son was serving in Iraq.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Ed O'Keefe is the Washington Post's point man on all matters Homosexual. I guess he's got his nice little liberal niche at the liberal paper.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 3, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

All liberals need to be removed from all positions of authority. That is the only way our "Representative Republic" will be saved. It's the only way for our government to be truly representative of American ideals.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 3, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: GMnStoneRidge

I spent 30 years as a Marine, only once did I consider not going the distance, 1993 before DADT became law. All junior enlisted troops live in close quarters ashore and afloat although the greatest pressures may be on combat units. I know GLBT don't like hearing their choice of life styles violates the morale values of many people, but it is what it is. Those Marines who can't reconcile living with homosexuals will vote with their feet and would be Marines will find other ways to serve the Country together with the blessing of their family members who were Marines. Semper Fidelis does not extend to compromising one's integrity or principles. Just think if Training and Education Command gets the training right, in one or two decades from now we can usher in a new chapter in USMC history as we celebrate our first openly gay Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps.

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

Moral values? You are paid to MURDER people. What moral value does that reflect? Where in the Bible does it say "Go out and murder in the name of your country?"

Talk about a skewed sense of entitlement to pass judgment on others.

If you are in the military, you are a paid murderer. Get over your sense of moral superiority.

Posted by: B-rod | December 3, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"I am a hetrosexual who would prefer not to take a shower with someone who is openly homosexual". but you admit that gays serve now, so you don't mind taking a shower if you don't know that the guy next to you is gay, but could be.

I don't mind playing with a gun if I know it is unloaded, but if I don't know whether is is loaded or not, I'll still play with it.

The bottom line is that the people who don't want to repeal DADT at best, do not want gays in the military at all, and at worst see the repeal of DADT as part of the vast gay agenda that will allow a segment of society that they do not like (and do not want to exist) to gain equal footing with them in THIER country.

It is not about readiness, enlistment numbers, or being at war (I love this argument since the military is trained to go to war at anytime, so if the operations in southwest Asia ended today, the argument would have to be that our troops can be called into action at any moment, so no time is good), but rather a deep rooted bias against gays, and in some cases a more deeply rooted fixation that sex is meant to happen between a man and a woman, in the missionary position, with the end result being a baby.

Posted by: The_Rat | December 3, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Repeal is inevitable. Just like the integrated military and women serving. And just like their predecessors, McCain and the Tea Klan will be seen by history for what they really are. Bigots (in McCain's case that senile bigot who gave us Sarah Palin, our centuries Joe McCarthy).

Posted by: rcc_2000 | December 3, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Semper Fidelis does not extend to compromising one's integrity or principles", which I guess means that any gay marine who has to lie to his commanders because of DADT is by definition not a true Marine.

Since you say "only once did I consider not going the distance, 1993 before DADT became law", I would have to guess that your true position is that gays do not belong in the USMC at all, but then agin you stayed even with a policy you did not agree with. Was that not "compromising one's integrity or principles", or was it because you were a good marine and followed the orders of those appointed over you?

Posted by: The_Rat | December 3, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

[edited]
"Unfortunately, it makes you a straight man with the emotional IQ of a 13 year old. But maybe you are 13 years old. The fact that you can only focus on the showers is very telling."

Yes, of course, factchecker1. And you get Playboy for the articles. Be sure your girlfriend/wife knows you're utterly indifferent and unimpressed by her sexuality and nudity. Or, if gay, that your boyfriend understands you are nonplussed about his physique. Frankly, if you were in the hypothetical shower with 20 nude females and failed to notice it at all then, well, 3 Billion men in the world would say you’re probably telling an untruth. Oppure sei un membro del castrato. Enough with casually dismissing the shower episode. How does one reconcile the fact that gay men are - wait for it - physically attracted to other men? And why should a soldier who isn't have to STFU, grin and bear it? Would a woman not be entitled to similar consideration(s) regarding men in her shower? Why are the sexes separated at all? The single defining characteristic that makes a man "gay" is - again, wait for it - they like dudes. Gay men don’t have different motor functions, aren’t less dexterous, do not smell different or shoot different or, mostly, speak different. And that universality with all men certainly recommends them for service. But stop pretending that a man being naturally sexuality attracted to other men doesn’t mean anything when living as intimately as in the military. If it did not there would be no reason whatsoever to separate straight men from straight women in the military. Yet, for some reason…not sure why…can’t seem to make sense of it…have no idea the reason…ahem…we do. Another point...there have been, we hear, many thousands discharged from the military due to DADT. Why were they discharged? For knitting on the battlefield? For donning Lady Gaga boots while disarming an IED? Or, could it be, could it maybe, possibly be, that there was some sexual encounter contrary to military regs? We are told thousands discharged. All for suddenly proclaiming their sexuality to the world? All of them? C'mon. Enough with the disingenuous drivel.

Posted by: cartmaneric | December 3, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm struggling to think of a single piece of social legislation (Socialism?), that the Right Wing Neanderthals didn't have to be pushed out of the way on ....


Civil Rights?
Education Reform?
Medicare?
Social Security?


It's a long list.


Todays extremist Republican party is nothing more than a bunch of xenephobic tools of the wealthy, attached to "traditions" that oppress. And that is being kind to these corporate controlled pigs.

.

Posted by: DrainYou | December 3, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

When I served in the military, women weren’t allowed to go to sea on warships. But women justifiably believed that those kinds of restrictions weren’t fair and should be abolished. They were abolished. But still, there were certain conditions, conditions where women were provided with their own bathing areas and sleeping quarters. Now there’s a segment of society, the homosexuals, who believe they too should be allowed the freedom of their sexuality in the military. Well .. If separate bathing areas and sleeping quarters can be provided for them then don’t ask don’t tell should be abolished. But there definitely needs to be an area of sanctuary for each of these ‘orientations’, a place they can go to get away from the others.

Posted by: kcooper35 | December 3, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The readers here and members of the Senate are questioning how the question was asked as because it appears that the decision to repeal DADT was made. It was- last winter at the State of the Union Address by the Commander In Chief. The SECDEF and the JCS Chair, or their desinees, asked the questions in the survey with clear commander's intent. Also, the "can we implement this" approach to the questions, asked of many more stakeholders than is normal for DoD on any of the decisions they make, is an action oriented statement. That is the normal way the military is tasked to respond.

They did not ask the "should it be repealed?" question because that is asking the front line service member to engage in political debates. That debate was resolved by a clear commander's intent which a majority of voters gave President Obama the right to determine on election day 2008.

Every one of the service chiefs, who are subordinate to Obama, Gates, and Mullen agreed on one thing today: if ordered to, they would comply with the repeal. The Marine Commondant even bragged they would make it happen fastest, and best. That is a clear indicator that despite his wanting to lessen the stress on his combat troops, that he has an implementation plan already sitting on his desk.

The military rank and file, their families, their officers, and their leadership have all been brought into a process to determine policy, which should be a rare occurance. This is the Department of Defense, not the Education Department. The overwhelming message was "eh,,, what's one more gay guy/ lesbian woman?". The chiefs spoke about the stress of 2 wars that are impacting their troops and are concerned about unit cohesion. They need to listen to their soldiers who are balancing their need to do their duty and get home alive with the triviality of this argument. If these units have bonded on the basis of their trust for each other, and policy requires you to lie and break that trust, then essentially, policy makers are breaking that trust.

We have many more important issues to deal with, and the Defense Department needs to have a budget approved. The Commander in Chief, and the civilian in charge of all of this has done due diligence. Its time for Congress to repeal the law, for the SECDEF to issue the order, and for the Service Chiefs to snap to attention and put those implementation plans into action.

Posted by: bill_delgrosso | December 3, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Only someone who is insecure about his own sexuality, would care.

Posted by: fishinfool
**********

Finally someone get's it! Whenever a girl objects to me trying to shower with here, I try to make her realize, I say, "baby, you're just scared you will like what you see".

There's a reason why that line is the thing of the most extreme caricatures...but then again that is exactly what anti-white male PC has become.


Posted by: dummypants | December 3, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

cartmaneric, you get KUDOs for saying what the others will not. It is all about sex. DADT should not be repealed because I do not want you around me if I know who you sleep with.

I served for a number of years. Many of my brothers in arms knew about me. They did not care. WE used the same shower, we used the same locker room, and we carried each other back from a night on the town. They had no fears of me, and I had no fears of them.

I believe most gam men are like me, as I imagine most straight men are too. I have no desire to sleep with every good looking man I see, and I expect that most straight men do not have a desire to sleep with ever hot lady that walks down the street. Most of us are not focused on sex. I can look at a picture of a hunky fireman and appreciate what kind of body he has, but guess what, I can also look at female fashion models, female Hollywood stars or a hot 20-something running down Crystal Drive in July and see beauty in all its glory. I sure don't want to have sex with her, and, as I said, I sure don't want to have sex with every muscled man I see.

I guess cause I've evolved I can look past a hot ass. Are you saying you can't?

Posted by: The_Rat | December 3, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

It's ashame that the Senate is listening to the biggest bigot of them all, John McCain, who sold his soul to keep his Senate seat. Now what is it he supports ?

Posted by: cameroon | December 3, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The_Rat

So, you are saying DADT worked just fine for you??

I commend your service. I really do. I mean I REALLY do! And I could give two craps if a man is gay or not. In fact, gay marriage, as an issue, is one I support. The military seems a whole different animal. I understand the Israelis, a force I respect immensely, have been so integrated for some time. They seem to do fine with it. I'm not so sure about our fighting men. It looks like dropping DADT will happen, so, we'll see. I'd very much like to be proven wrong. Not sure I will be, however.

Posted by: cartmaneric | December 3, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Nuke 41: The U.S.A. is a social experiment; a democratic melting pot. If we asked our soldiers if they would rather serve with friends or not, I am sure that they would have a preference. I would. However, in war, as in the U.S., we don't get to pick our co-workers or neighbors. At some point, a U.S. soldier will bond with another U.S. soldier (who happens to be gay,) against the ENEMY. And if the U.S. soldier would cannot kill the enemy (do his job)because his troop is full of jerks, blonds, stinking, ugly, underachievers, overachievers, gays, celibate catholics, men that don't drink or curse, pretty women, etc., then he shouldn't be in the military.

Posted by: alvarezlm | December 3, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

It is time that three homophobes were separated from the military and younger fresher minds took those slots. The greatest general of the ancient world, Alexander the Greek, conquered the known world in his time -- his homosexuality neither disrupted his military nor caused any reduction in effectiveness.

EVERY Samuri was inducted to the Samuri code by his mentor/master in an explicitly homosexual relationship, and not the best US combat warrior could ever defeat a mediocre Samuri in hand-to-hand combat.

King David in the Bible, the winingest general the Isrealis ever had, then or now, was openly homosexual with King Saul's son.

You can argue what you like but the historical facts call you a liar if you claim that gays cannot produce the best soldiers the world has ever seen. In fact, showing up the wimpy straights could be the cause of homophobia -- the gays are just so obviously better qualified that it's embarrassing to the red-neck drunk 30% of whinny complainers.

There are already gays in the military. That's why 80,000 have been separated by DADT, many of them with more important skills and medals for bravery being badmouthed by some drunken redneck lowbrow privates who never distinguished themselves in combat at all.

It is clear that many officers in the military VIOLATED THIS LAW, they did ASK, they witchhunted private emails from people who never TOLD. If you are kicking out somebody, let's kick out every officer who violated the law and revoke their pension! Gay taxpayers should not be supporting homophobe haters who break the law!

I'll trade you, one hatefilled homophobe kicked to the curb for every gay you bully. This policy ends fast when the ASKERS get their ASK kicked!

McCain has aided and abetted criminal conduct of officers who DID ASK, poked into secret private emails like they were wikileakers. The DADT law is clear: DON'T ASK! Violaters must get their ASK kicked. One officer will be fired for every gay discharge. Gay Taxpayers do not need to support homophobe bullies and their criminal acts. The bums certainly deserve to lose their pensions for dishonorable actions. They need to find out what it is like to look for a job at 45 years old with no pension, no medical care waiting for you. Trade you ONE FOR ONE, bullies! Go ahead McCain, MAKE MY DAY!

Posted by: Liann | December 3, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

It's my belief that most straight Marines are like you, Rat:

We're not worried about gay men finding us attractive, we won't freak out if they see us naked (as they have, for years in the closet), and we could maintain professional distance as necessary from people we found attractive, EVEN people we saw in the shower at (theoretically multi-gender) boot camp or CAX or on deployment.

Cartman's issues are not everyone's issues.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

But it occurs to me, Rat, that you knew this already, as your comment indicates.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Good for Senator Brown. Many polls show the majority of people support the change, and, according to the military's own report, a large majority in the military say the change can be done without undue disruption.

Do away with DADT and go on. It is way past time.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 3, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama should tell these troglodytes to retire, they hare holding back the future.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | December 3, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Robert Gates should be fired !! i new all along he was a liberal ! There would be no other reason Obama liked him from the start.

Posted by: corp21 | December 3, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

America is broke and unemployment is rampant. That DADT is an issue at this time, overtaking more important issues is pathetic.

People are dying in 2 wars and coming out of the closet is more important? Live and let live does not apply in Iraq or Afghan. End the wars and then make this an issue.

Posted by: sbeth1 | December 3, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Illogicbuster:
BZZZT! Wrong. We have the most effective large fighting force in the world. The ONLY thing broken is the IQs of those who wish the military to be a social lab experiment. Go fight in a combat unit and if you survive come back and lecture how it is broken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A social lab experiment?” Isn’t that the same argument people used when they were integrating blacks into the military/society? I’m sorry; but gays already are – and always have been – in the military, so there isn’t/never was a “social experiment.” Lastly; one of the reasons why we have the most effective large fighting force in the world, is because gays – as do heterosexuals – lay their lives on the line for this country. Get a clue!

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 3, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

White haired old bigots. These excuses are like McCain's; when there is no war they will come up with something else. They just hate gays and I suspect Senator McCain has been working them pretty hard behind the scenes. Even if the law is repealed it is clear now that the senior officer corps will find a way of punishing gays in the military and making it difficult to get promotions or decent assignments. In other words repeal will result in harassment of many more gays in the military. Apparently, the Sec of Def and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have little authority. The only saving grace is that sooner or later the old men will loose and they will be publicly shamed by those who are angered by their bigotry.

The most worrisome thing is that if the generals are willing to do an end run on the American people and a majority in congress as well as their bosses, they what happens on another issue they do not agree with. These guys are actually loose cannons and as such a danger to the nation perhaps.

Posted by: tarryh | December 3, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Still waving the bloody shirt, eh, sbeth?

Care to respond to my comments to you at 1:41 above?

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I am older than DADT. I graduated from a service academy, and when I met the man I wanted to spend my life with, I left the military because I could not live my life and do the job I was trained for (and loved), without living in the shadows. DADT would not have changed that. Under DADT, just like before DADT, I could not function as my straight peers did. They had wives who could come to Command functions, that they could call while being deployed, and a support network (that included me) when their marriage went south when we were overseas. I was afforded none of these privileges. Granted, I had friends that helped me through the bad times, but the cold hard facts were that a simple change in command from one skipper to another, and I could loose my job, my career and earned a "less than honorable" discharge. When looking at a twenty plus year career, the risk was to high, so I left.
I even know one gay friend who did stay, and was passed over for promotion to 0-5, after DADT was put in place. While one can never know for sure why promotion boards do what they do, the fact that when he resigned and got his copy of his service record, on the top of the first page was a hand drawn lambda leads one to question the enforcement of DADT.
So the fact remains that we were there, and gay men still are still serving. Not affording them the security and honor of serving our country because of the deep seated, but unfounded fears of a minority of people, when they have chosen to put their lives on the line to guarantee the freedoms of that very same minority, seems unfair, and against the values that this country was founded upon

(and yes, 28 years later, we are still together)

Posted by: The_Rat | December 3, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse


White haired old bigots.

Posted by: tarryh | December 3, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

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

Ah, the voice of enlightenment and progressivity.

DADT is this: gays pretend they're straight and straights pretend gays aren't violating their privacy.

If gays want to proclaim their homosexuality to all the world, fine. Heterosexuals can assert a right to privacy from anyone who might develop a sexual or romantic interest in them.

And we all accept that gays can't control who they fall in love with. That's why no one blames them for being gay.

I can't control the fact that I'm sexually attracted to females, but I don't demand to use their locker rooms and showers at the gym.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

In all seriousness, blas, why are you so worried?

Why do you care if someone of the same sex is attracted to you? They would know that inappropriate behavior on the job is punishable by the UCMJ and not attempt anything, even IF so inclined. They would take the time to determine if you were gay or not and then drop it.

So what's the fear? As a straight Marine, I'm genuinely curious.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 3, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

stevie_in_gp,

Where's the fear? Squee-Gee guys cannot clean my windshield without my permission. That doesn't mean I'm frightened of Squee-Gee guys. It just means they have no right to clean my windshield without my permission.

Men have no right to be in women's locker rooms. Women have no right to be in men's locker rooms. Gays and lesbians are not super-citizens who are granted the royal right to view the naked bodies of those to whom they are sexually attracted, like masters at a slave auction.

stevie_in_gp, who on earth ever told you that you had a right to sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as those to whom you are sexually attracted? Since you are straight, the answer is no one. In fact, you, like me, have been taught the reverse.

Now if you have ever been to a nudie bar in Washington, DC, then you will see women dancing on stage and revealing their naked selves to men whose names they don't even know. For a dollar, you will be shown an eyeful of detail that only the Internet can match. But if walk toward the men's room and accidentally step near the door to the dancers' dressing area, you will encounter a very stern bouncer. This should instruct us that there is a huge difference between what is willfully revealed and what is not.

With DADT, gays pretend to be straight, and straights pretend their privacy is not being violated. If gays want to declare their homosexuality, then they can't sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as heterosexuals. They have no right to view the naked bodies of heterosexuals, not 30 percent, not 1 percent, not even one.

Maybe DADT is wrong because it makes liars of gays about who they are, and liars of straights about whether their privacy is being violated.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 3, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

vageorge wrote: "I meant totally uncomfortable!!!!"
__________________

AKA "homophobic".

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic wrote: "Gays and lesbians are not super-citizens who are granted the royal right to view the naked bodies of those to whom they are sexually attracted,"
___________________

Who said they were sexually attracted to you? Grow up. This is an adult world.

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

First, Mullen is a sorry SOB, a liar and a** kisser. He has sold out the great tradition of our military for the sake of his political career. I hope our paths cross so I can personally thank him.

This is the first time that I am ashamed of my country.

Posted by: numbersch13 | December 3, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Wait, @numbe:

You hold those views but weren't ashamed in 1993/4? What are ya, 15 years old?

And if you see the CJCS, you may want to voice your displeasure politely: he's a big, strong dude for an old sailor.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 4, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse


Who said they were sexually attracted to you? Grow up. This is an adult world.

Posted by: Manwolf | December 3, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

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

An openly gay man by his own admission is sexually attracted to men.

Would you ever tell a woman that she is so unattractive she could shower with the men and have no concern for her safety or privacy?

I believe it's time for gays and lesbians to grow up about who they are in the world.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 4, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The self-serving testimony of Generals like James Amos is pathetic. He is an employee. Fire him. He didn't tell the truth, he only repeat the mythology. Fire him.

Posted by: DavidATL45 | December 4, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The self-serving testimony of a General like James Amos is pathetic. He is an employee. Fire him. He didn't tell the truth, he only repeated the mythology. Fire him.

Posted by: DavidATL45 | December 4, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Mullen and Gates are nothing more than political tools for the Obama administration, i.e. Socialist Yes-men.

Leave it to the marines to be straight-talkers, because what Gen. Amos said is true, even mild compared to what the actual servicemembers state. The rank-and-file are very strongly against serving with homosexuals in the military, and the American People support them.

Lugar, Collins, Brown, etc., are just politicians who want to cut deals to augment their own power. May they be cut off at the ankles.

Posted by: Keltin1 | December 4, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I can tell you in 2 words why homosexuals should never be allowed to served: Bradley Manning.

Manning is a perfect example. He betrayed this country because of his sexuality. He should have been busted and thrown out of the military, but this didn't happen because of political correctness.

(For those who don't know who Manning is, he's the one who gave all of the secrets to Wikileaks.)

This issue has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with destroying every decent institution in our society because homosexuals can't take criticism. They just can't stand being told that there is something wrong with them, and their lifestyle is disgusting. If you can't take criticism, you won't make it in the military. Therein lies the problem, and it will lead to a lot of problems.

Also, tell me why our troops should be exposed to all of the diseases and unhealthy health habits these people bring with them?

Only about 1% of the country is homosexual. That's male and female, yet they get 78% of the sexually transmitted diseases.

Homosexual males are 50 times more likely than heterosexual males to get AIDs.

Between 25 and 40% of child molesters are homosexual, and they molest at a rate of 5 times more than heterosexual molesters. Are these people you want around your children?

And while we're at it, let's talk about "hate crimes." This is legislation that actually violates the 14th Amendment because it created a special class of people in our society.

These crimes are almost non existent. Over half of the murders committed against homosexuals are committed by other homosexuals.

Homosexuality is nothing more than a behavior, and behavior can be changed. To cater to 1% of our population so they don't get their feelings hurt is just plain stupid, and it jeopardizes the readiness of our military.

Read the "Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian and "The Agenda" by Louis P. Sheldon. This is the information that homosexuals hope you never find out.

We can afford to lose all of the homosexuals in the military because their numbers are insignificant. We can't afford to lose 10% of our forces because they don't want to, and shouldn't have to serve with homosexuals. After my experience in the active duty Army, can't much say I blame them.

Posted by: jingerjarrett | December 4, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Some of the comments are definately trolls posing as ret. military.

Know what Homosexuality is. It is a Self Destructive Behavior. Why in the world would you want individuals with a self destructive behavior in the military? Also gays that serve KNOW the military does not want Homosexuals. Just as a 400lbs person knows the military does not want them. So they should have NEVER enlisted or signed up. Now some will say where do I get off calling homosexual behavior Self Destructive? Look at the Data.

The first major problem is the current long standing ban on homosexual men donating blood which was reaffirmed this past June. While the “lifetime ban” was not warmly received, all opposing discussion centered on the allowable time between homosexual sex (men having sex with men – MSM) and the act of blood donation. See http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=640056

In a 2006 transcript (see http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4206t1.pdf) of a similar hearing concerning MSM blood donation, it was noted on page 46-47 of the document that the European Blood Exchange also bans donations from MSM, and the ban was upheld in a court challenge. Of note, on page 48 of the report the MSM HIV infection rate in the US was cited as approximately 500,000. This number was essentially validated in the next document as posted on the CDC website:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf The document states the following four highlights:

- MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).

- MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

- While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

- MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

The last point is most disconcerting when combined with a recent study (see http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/127715/teen-sex-survey-reveals-risky-behavior ). A new study on city teens and sex has identified some risky sexual behaviors - particularly among teens that have partners of both genders. According to the study in the journal Pediatrics released in October, nearly 1 in 10 of the city's sexually-active high school students say they have had at least one partner of the same sex. Those teens reported higher-than-average rates of dating violence, forced sex, and risky sexual behavior.

PART I of post

Posted by: tedy2 | December 5, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

PART II of Post

Of the male teens who say they have had both male and female partners, just 44 percent said they used a condom the last time they had sex. That's compared to 79 percent of male teens who have only slept with female partners and 62 percent who'd slept with only same-sex partners. The report is based on more than 17,000 public health surveys administered in New York City high schools in 2005 and 2007. This tells us that MSM sex in high school students is radically increasing.

If 4% of US Population of males between the ages of 13 and older is MSM inclined, and 532,000 MSM are HIV positive, we can extrapolate the following: Of the US Census demographics of military service the closest US Census ages statistics are 13-44 – approximately 53 million men (see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_G2009_T006_2009&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=809&-all_geo_types=Y&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en ) This means that of this percentage, approximately 12% - more than 1 in 10 - of all MSM in the USA are HIV Positive. If the 4% statistic is applied only 53 million military aged demographic, we get a 25% infection rate – or 1 in 4 MSM in that age group are HIV positive. This tells us the infection rate for military aged personnel is between 12% to 25% - an neither statistic is acceptable. Add to that approximately half of all new annual HIV infections are MSM and the medical cost and readiness implications are significant. This clearly shows the MSM demographic is the most risky for HIV of any demographic in America. These statistics coupled to the NY City school statistic of 1 in 10 males has had sex with another male creates the potential for spiraling HIV transmission rate in the military service demographic.

These clearly documented facts show that (1) homosexual conduct is the highest risk conduct for HIV transmission; (2) that the MSM population group has the highest per capita infection rates of any demographic; (3) MSM blood donations are banned for life and that status was reaffirmed in June 2010 making battlefield medicine problematic at best.

Without considering any other aspects of the issue of open service of homosexuals such as privacy, religious and moral issues, these HIV infection rate facts should clearly demonstrate that open service of homosexuals is not in the best interest of the Nation’s security posture and will clearly harm the readiness of the armed forces and greatly increase medical bills for serving HIV positive soldiers and veterans (as the requirement to treat them transfers to the Veterans Administration).

Posted by: tedy2 | December 5, 2010 10:11 AM | 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