Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

How we got to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Contrary to some reports, today's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy requiring homosexuals in the military to conceal their orientation or face discharge did not originate with the Clinton administration. President Clinton entered office in 1993 with a plan to issue an executive order completely lifting the ban against gays and lesbians serving in the military. He was rebuffed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and faced down by a Congress that threatened to overturn his proposed executive order.

How we got from Clinton's original idea to today's "don't ask, don't tell" (or, as one gay critic put it, "lie and hide") policy, is worth re-telling, lest President Obama, who also wants the ban repealed, experiences a repeat of Clinton's defeat.

Clinton was trying to fulfill a campaign promise, and he was counting on the military and Congress to ultimately go along with his idea after maybe some grumbling around Pentagon watercoolers and in congressional cloakrooms. He encountered a cauldron of opposition instead, stoked by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn. At one point, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin said the administration could count on only about 30 senators to support lifting the ban. The current DADT is the compromise agreed to by Clinton and the critics -- an agreement now enshrined in law.

House Democrat Barney Frank (Mass.), a supporter of repeal, told National Public Radio in a 1993 interview printed in The Post, "If Congress has to choose between a complete lifting of the ban or completely enforcing the old, very restrictive policy, they'll do the latter." He faulted the gay and lesbian leadership for just talking to each other about Clinton's plan and not with members of Congress. Frank said he had assumed the gay leadership was on top of the scheduling of the debate, but said he "found out to my dismay a couple of weeks ago that the bill which would have been the vehicle for enforcing the ban was about to come up, and they hadn't really done anything about it." Frank said he took the lead in getting the bill postponed. "But that was the final suggestion to me that the current tactics weren't working." Clinton was not without supporters, but few were in uniform or on the Hill where it counted.

I, along with other journalists, joined in pounding out editorials and columns backing repeal. But we couldn't vote in Congress then. We can't today. Lifting the ban requires a laser-like focus on Capitol Hill. That's where Clinton made his mistake. It's a lesson, let us hope, Obama and supporters of DADT repeal have learned.

By Colbert King  | February 8, 2010; 6:26 PM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What is it about Illinois politicians?
Next: Opportunity knocks for the Feb. 25 health-care summit

Comments

I must question if this issue has been weighed and balanced against the ripple effects of pushing 'sexual preferences' in the faces of our soldiers during war time? I surmise, however, that this is simply the means to an end by a minority of zealots regardless of adverse results or consequences. This is a worthless and disruptive gesture to give a few victory, without the fairness of a majority rule.

Posted by: sbduncaster | February 8, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I recall this entire homosexual issue was a complete surprise to most people. This was pre Internet and the main stream media had not covered Clinton's promises to gays. Or that it was even a issue with anybody since the draft had ended.
Everybody was totally focused on health care, and this issue suddenly was slid into the deck just ahead of and stuck on health care, and would not go away. Clinton's maneuvered it so was both passed or nothing passed.
So nothing was passed, we got no Health Care, and I think this was the Clinton plan all along, he knew the public would react strongly against openly homosexual military.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | February 8, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

The military is a place with no privacy. With no privacy, sexual equality means gender equality.
There was a time when sex/gender were synonymous. Growing up, boys were boys, girls were girls, and every child in elementary school learned which bathroom to use.
As adults, though, sexual orientation does not matter, so why should gender? Just take down those signs on the bathroom doors.
If Muslims, and others, are oriented toward having more than one spouse, why not?
Incest?
Beastiality?
Inflatable or battery powered?
Those are all forms of sexual orientation, and what should make any one preferable to another, so long as we are approaching this from a pragmatic viewpoint rather than a moral one?
Where do we allow morals to step in, since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", but pragmatism knows no bounds?
If women were in the combat arms branches of the Army - true equality - what would be good enough for them, should be good enough for everybody.

Posted by: elfraed | February 9, 2010 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Why do they care? It is no ones business if no one is forced. What about freedom of choice? I do not get it. Are they just mean,or stupid? IT DOE'S NOT HARM ME AT ALL AND IF HOMOSEXUALS WANT TO DEFEND MY COUNTRY; WHY THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND MAY GOD PROTECT YOU.

Posted by: freebutch1embarqmailcom | February 9, 2010 5:29 AM | Report abuse


A popular political argument for permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the Marine Corps is that otherwise qualified Marines are being lost to the Corps solely due to their sexuality. That argument is unabashedly simplistic in failing to include the impact of homosexual Marines serving openly on Marines of conscience. In the first instance, the very nature of being Marines of conscience will prompt many of them to extricate themselves from such associations. A notable example of that imperative is the following Marine: On 2 February 1983, Captain Charles B. "Chuck" Johnson, USMC, of Neenah, Wisconsin jumped on an Israeli tank that tried to run through a Marine roadblock in Lebanon. He threatened to shoot the tank commander if he continued: The tank withdrew. Later, that Marine officer of conscience resigned his commission rather than compromise his moral convictions and serve with practitioners of homosexual acts tacitly protected by, "Don't ask. Don't tell." That action was a manifestation of the Biblical imperative voiced in The Epistle of James 2:14-26 that convictions are worthless unless practiced. If the United States Congress reverses itself and permits homosexuals Marines to serve openly, they will force from service and replace still more Marines who value and practice their conscience.

For the rest of this thesis, go to: http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Marines_of_Conscience_or_Ho.php

Posted by: MAJUSMCRET | February 9, 2010 5:37 AM | Report abuse

It would seem with all the internet social net-working sites that seem to be de rigueur for young people these days, "don't ask, don't tell" and the whole closet idea would be rendered rather obsolete, anyway. Kind of reminds me of the old joke about the man who had to go through the ladies' locker room and shouted, "Close your eyes, girls, I'm coming through."

Posted by: martymar123 | February 9, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

A bigger story about military buggery.
The US Army provided M-16 rifles that it knew jammed, lied about their doing so, American soldiers died/wounded, no one was held accountable - proof:
Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on the M-16 Rifle Program of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, 1967.
Current Army/military acquisition people advise me they know the story, nonetheless seem to chose career over duty/honor/county still.

Posted by: mwerfe | February 9, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuals being people are people. Homosexuals being homosexuals are homosexuals. It is the latter that concerns those opposed to lifting the ban. A barracks and a shower room is no place for homosexual displays. Homosexual manifestations on a personal, close-quarters level, which will inevitably occur, affect many men something like fingernails on a blackboard, only rather worse.

That is presently a fact. It isn't a moral issue. It's cultural. And the cultural factor is very strong in the military.

The military requires nothing if not conformity. Why is it an undue imposition to ask gay men to conform outwardly to the cultural norms of the military--like the haircut and the uniform--while they serve, if group cohesion, morale and effectiveness are involved?

This will probably seem like moral insanity to the conventionally minded and politically correct. But it is not the same thing as racial integration, in fact, quite different, so don't be confused by that.

A time may well come with DADT is not longer necessary. Who knows? But if the time isn't now it shouldn't be forced. There's too much at stake, and you're already asking a lot of a young man to risk his life in combat.

Posted by: Roytex | February 9, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King writes: "He [Rep. Barney Frank] faulted the gay and lesbian leadership for just talking to each other about Clinton's plan and not with members of Congress." However, to truly reach a proper policy, the gay and lesbian leadership really needs to honestly talk to the leadership of groups who are in opposition to repealing the current policy.

As a veteran (5 years active duty in the US Navy's nuclear propulsion program and 11 years as a US Naval Reservist) I do have concerns about the work environment our military personnel find themselves facing (male and female regardless of their sexual orientation). No matter what the policy is, military discipline and unit cohesion will need to be maintained. Inappropriate sexual behavior no matter what the source (superior-subordinate, peer-to-peer, as a bribe or to obtain preferential treatment), orientation (heterosexual or homosexual), or time/location (on-base or off-base 24/7) must be properly addressed through the US Military Code of Justice (USMJ). The key will be doing so fairly, appropriately, and swiftly so that any military unit can complete their missions/assignments now or in the future when called upon even when facing significant casualties. As I believe past USMJ cases have shown, this can be a significant problem just among heterosexuals, and now throwing in homosexuals suddenly without a thought out program for transitioning to a more open US military can add serious problems completely unnecessarily.

Will the gay and lesbian "leadership" truly understand AND support a real and rationale change in policy with the needed transition? The spokespersons for gays and lesbians that I have seen on the various political discussion shows over the many years since "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" became the policy makes me believe they really do not understand that the concern I raise above is the true reason why there are many who do not want the policy changed or replaced.

Until the gay and lesbian leadership (who ever that may be) are willing to hold such discussions and come to a clear resolution with those in opposition on how military discipline and cohesion will be maintained (via the USMJ) with "openly" homosexuals serving in the US military, then there will always be significant resistance against changing the policy.

PS-Yes, I know there are those who will never accept a change in policy just as there are those on the other side who do not accept that openly flauting their sexuality can cause serious problems in a military unit. However, I also believe a majority of current or former military personnel are like myself. Namely, willing to accept any qualified person (physically and mentally) in the US military no matter whether heterosexual or homosexual as long as they agree to fully and completely abide by the USMJ, fully support the chain-of-command and keep their sexual activities to the appropriate and proper times and situations.

Posted by: ARickoverNuke | February 9, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Gays have always existed in the military, and they always will. What "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" does is to legalize discrimination against these people. It allows those who are there to be hazed, it codifies injustice. This policy shift is not about changing behavior in the military, this is about changing the military's reaction to the behavior that already exists there.

Posted by: bigdaddyLA | February 9, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

A few decades ago a person would loose their security clearance if it came out that they were gay. Then the civilian world realized that it wasn't gay people per-se, but closeted gay people were the security risk. So they changed the policy so that if you were out with your family/friends, no problem but if you were closeted you were not able to be cleared. Suddenly gays couldn't be blackmailed as long as they were open - and there was no real downside.

Someday people will realize that the same applies to the military. DADTDP will be seen as something that facilitates blackmail and that its repeal will make the military more effective and less vulnerable.

Posted by: cyberfool | February 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The catholic church did dadt for centuries. Many catholic families would send that "special" son or daughter to the seminary or the nunnery where they could live celibate lives. Our southern evangelical legislators thought that that was a great plan--look how well it worked for the pope!!

THAT is how we got dadt.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | February 9, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

We have scientific evidence that DADT is just discrimination--our allies who have openly gay and lesibian service members serving (GASP!) alongside our service members in the trenches. They are serving together, in some extreme instances getting naked together, and I haven't seen the stories about the cancer this is causing amoung US service members.

Just as we look back with disdain and disbelief on supporters of slavery, men-only voting, and segregation, future generations are going to look back on us with disdain and disbelief.

Posted by: streff | February 9, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

This is an issue outside the military. The troops have ignored sexual orientation for years. There are many homosexual members of the armed forces. The troops know who they are and do not care. Gays suffer only in those commands with older officers and Queer Hunters. Those seeking favor with the Queer Hunter betray the gay personnel. The commanders only have to stop listening to third parties and the issue is defacto over.

Posted by: cperrym | February 9, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

There should be a don't ask - don't tell policy. But then there should be separate shower rooms for men, women, male homosexuals and female homosexuals. The mility would be forced to spend more, but why not? They have been spending and wasting a lot of taxpayers' money at will and wihout regard to decency. Talk about $10,000 toilet seat covers!

The gay community should not activly participate in this debate. Just let it live or die. After all, its members should not be viewed as seeking to "take a look" at the privates of the straight military members.

If they insist on openly displaying their homosexuality with all the hallmarks of gays in caucus, there can be a rule in the military against boisterous conduct. I bet the prison barracks will always get a full occupancy.

After all, who wants to be an openly gay person in the military but those who could not stomach being in the closet, seeing someone in the closet, seeing someone acting straight (if there could be a definition ofone), who feel that if you are gay, you should flaunt being gay.

How about the opinions of gay people who do not flaunt being gay but instead be gay and be content with himself? Do they wish to have a different policy in the military other than the "don't ask - don't tell" and the "be openly gay or straight" policies?

Posted by: Philsman | February 9, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

You are such cowards.

The UK got rid of their equivalent in one day.

Canada got rid of the ban on active homesexuals in their military in two days.

YOU NEED A FEW YEARS?

Give me a break!

Who do you think has been fighting the Afghan War when Bush had us go off-mission? It wasn't the Easter Bunny ..

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 9, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The loss of American jobs overseas is the Don't Ask, Don't tell policy of Republicans and Democrats in government that Americans should be concerned about.

Both Republicans and Democrats in government pretend there will be jobs for Americans when the reality is there will be American jobs for other nations.
.........................
Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas. February 10, 2004

"The loss of work to other countries, while painful in the short term, will enrich the economy eventually, his report to Congress says."

The embrace of foreign outsourcing, an accelerating trend that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years and has become an issue in the 2004 elections, is contained in the president's annual report to Congress on the health of the economy.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/10/nation/na-bushecon10

Posted by: bsallamack | February 9, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Many people in the military are adults. We don't care about your fantasies of a 'pure' military. We are big boys and girls who don't get rattled when we are in contact with someone who is not just like us.

During the 1st Gulf war, we joked about how sending in an all-female combat team would destroy the enemy, since they aren't good at seeing women as capable human beings.
Perhaps Taliban are contemplating using gay and lesbians to totally unman American forces. See how silly that sounds?

Grow up, you are not the center of the universe.

Posted by: RMarigny | February 9, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Many people in the military are adults. We don't care about your fantasies of a 'pure' military. We are big boys and girls who don't get rattled when we are in contact with someone who is not just like us.

During the 1st Gulf war, we joked about how sending in an all-female combat team would destroy the enemy, since they aren't good at seeing women as capable human beings.
Perhaps Taliban are contemplating using gay and lesbians to totally unman American forces. See how silly that sounds?

Grow up, you are not the center of the universe.

Posted by: RMarigny | February 9, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

This whole issue is based on the assumption you can tell what someone else's sexual behavior is. You cannot. Sexual behavior for everyone varies all over the place. Even what they tell you does not count. What should get an individual thrown out of the military is having an obsession with other peoples sexual behavior. Especially forbidden should be any attempt to label other people as having some form of sexual behavior. This kind of labeling creates a hostile, anti-team, environment that can destroy unit cooperation.

Posted by: kengelhart | February 9, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Captain Charles B. "Chuck" Johnson:

It's a shame to see a Marine lose sight of the mission of the military and his duty to country, if he truly left his post when he was needed.

This Marine could serve alongside atheists and non-Christians, today he'd be serving alongside some with rap sheets, yet he'd be unable to serve with 3-5% of the force that might be gay?

I don't know what people mean by "flaunting". Do you tell people that you have a girlfriend or wife? Do you talk about your kids? Do you say I just wrote a letter home? If you are single, do you say whether you had a good time when on leave? Do you consider that "flaunting"?

Posted by: Amphigory | February 9, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that every other industrial country has got past this and not here?
Obama needs to simply sign an ex: order to stop researching while they work on the law.
This will stop it any further erosion loss of military service by brave Americans. We need the troops and specialty language that many educated Gays bring to the table.
Isreal has pased this...? It's about war not sex and the military men who rape the military women need to take a good look at their behavior as well.

Posted by: crrobin | February 9, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

My service was aboard Nimitz in 1976-1981. Women in the military weren't aboard warships then, because they were busy taking up the shore billets. But now that women ARE aboard warships (those that don't get preggers to get out of sea duty that is, 80% of enlisted women) are afforded quarters separate from the men aboard ship. The reasons are obvious. Unwanted attractions from horny men entitle them to their "relative" privacy.

Now. Why should women be quartered separated from men's quarters aboard ship, but straight men have to be subjected to the presence of multiple gay men within THEIR quarters, a situation that must surely be better than a bar scene on Dupont Circle for the openly gay blades aboard a man o'war at sea?

This is prepostrous. It's not gay-hate, or a phobia. As a straight male serving in the military, I also have the right to the same isolation from those gay men potentially attracted in close quarters. It's a drag on morale, my wife wouldn't appreciate the concept, and anyone that's in favor of abandoning "don't ask, don't tell" is surely no one that has served in the military amd has no concept of the issues.

Allow me a quote-

"The USS Iowa turret explosion occurred in the Number Two 16-inch gun turret of the United States Navy battleship USS Iowa (BB-61) on April 19, 1989. The explosion in the center gun room killed 47 of the turret's crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret itself.

The first investigation into the explosion, conducted by the US Navy, concluded that one of the gun turret crew members, Clayton Hartwig, who died in the explosion, had deliberately caused it. During the investigation, numerous leaks to the media, later attributed to have come from Navy officers and investigators, implied that Hartwig and another sailor, Kendall Truitt, had engaged in a homosexual relationship and that Hartwig had caused the explosion after their relationship had soured."

Why do we need this nonsense? As I said, the only folks that are advocates of homos in the military are those that never served, and of course, homos. It is NOT worth the trouble..

Posted by: JamesChristian | February 9, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

It's funny to read about other countries, and as well the superficial arguments for social engineering the military. First, NATO and other coalition countries can afford all sorts of wayward policies because they don't carry anything approaching the real load that the U.S. carries. For instance, German units in Afghanistan won't even fight. So who cares if they're there in anything more than a placeholder capacity? If they aren't fighting the enemy they can afford a hugely lower standard of warfighting readiness ...
And the other aspect that no one seems to have a clue about is the real effect of sexual tension on warfighting - real warfighting - readiness. Men and women together creates sexual tension, period. Can't be avoided. Can't be "un-learned." It's too instinctive and part of human nature, despite what some screwball social psychologists try to pass off. Similarly, homosexuals bring sexual tension too. Doesn't have a thing to do with competence or equal rights, it has to do with defeating the enemy under the most stressful conditions in human existance. Most of the nay-sayers have no idea what this means. And that's why lives will be lost, needlessly, if unfettered gay integration takes place. And the U.S. will continue its downward trend in the world, although this would probably be OK with most of those who are all for fully embracing every lifestyle alternative that comes along ...

Posted by: LT369 | February 9, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Later, that Marine officer of conscience resigned his commission rather than compromise his moral convictions and serve with practitioners of homosexual acts tacitly protected by, "Don't ask. Don't tell." That action was a manifestation of the Biblical imperative voiced in The Epistle of James 2:14-26 that convictions are worthless unless practiced. If the United States Congress reverses itself and permits homosexuals Marines to serve openly, they will force from service and replace still more Marines who value and practice their conscience."

So this Marine decided that serving and protecting his country was less important than his own hatred.

It's worth noting that Jesus NEVER mentioned gays. Not once.

And as for military personnel quitting in droves, history would suggest otherwise. That's exactly what people said when the services integrated, yet very few soldiers actually left.

And that's exactly what people said when the Israelis and Brits allow gay soldiers to serve openly.

Again, very few actually left.

And, honestly, if you are willing to leave the military just because a fellow soldier is allowed to be open and honest about themselves, then really the military is better off without you.

Posted by: Hillman1 | February 9, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"First, NATO and other coalition countries can afford all sorts of wayward policies because they don't carry anything approaching the real load that the U.S. carries."

Tell that to the families of the dead British soldiers from the Iraq and Afghan wars.

And you are conveniently leaving out the Israeli example. I'd argue that their soldiers are actually under more stress than hours, as Israel is basically constantly at war.

And both the Brits and the Israelis have no problem with gays serving openly.

Why is it that American soldiers are so much more delicate, so less well trained, and less disciplined than the Brits and the Israelis?

Posted by: Hillman1 | February 9, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

First Point:
When women were accepted into the military they were given separate showers, and berthing to account for the sexual difference. In this society you can’t make a woman disrobe in front of a man or vice versa because it’s not politically correct. Then how is it politically correct making a man (woman) disrobe (take a shower) in front of a gay man (woman). The military is not a regular job, its the only job in the world where they tell you who you will live with, who you will shower with, who you will see for a doctor. How will you separate the sexual differences with gays?

Second Point:
I spent six years in the military and saw at least 6 people discharged for "don’t ask don’t tell" but out of all of them there was not one person that wanted to stay in the military. All of these instances happened immediately prior to deployment. The number of people that get kicked out for "don’t ask don’t tell" that want to stay in is very small.

Posted by: William2010 | February 9, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Now. Why should women be quartered separated from men's quarters aboard ship, but straight men have to be subjected to the presence of multiple gay men within THEIR quarters, a situation that must surely be better than a bar scene on Dupont Circle for the openly gay blades aboard a man o'war at sea?"

Nonsense. First off, any inappropriate sexual advances would still be against the UCMJ.

Second, do you really think the overwhelmingly straight atmosphere in military atmospheres would really change? That somehow the 97% of soldiers that are straight would suddenly cower in fear at the awesome power of the tiny gay minority?


Posted by: Hillman1 | February 9, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Gays are in the military and have been sharing sleeping quarters with straight men for years. Regardless of whether the person is "out" or not, they will still be in the military and the person's sexual orientation will not change. Every gay person is not preying on the poor straight guy.

My friend was killed in Iraq about a year ago when he and his detail were struck by a IED. He was gay and served the military for almost 20 years. For 20 years he protected this country and slept with his straight counterparts. Over the years, many of the straight soldiers knew he was gay and even attended a party before he left on his final tour of Iraq. I remember one of the straight military guys saying in a speech for my friend that it didnt matter that he was gay all that matters is that he had his back.

I love seeing the comments from the older generation say I served back in ____ and I needed to be away from the gays. Please. Give me a break. The gays were there, you just didnt know it. To think otherwise, is just ignorant.

Mr. James Christian cites the tragedy of USS Iowa, which, thankfully, I'm quite familiar with it. Mr. Christian quotes an investigation that the Navy has since apologized over b/c the investigation was not done correctly. Both Congress and the GAO disputed the findigs of the Navy. The congressional and GAO investigations found it to be an accident and the Navy's investigation was faulty, sloppy at best. It is extremely upsetting to see those to try to use a tragedy to justify their own conclusions. It does our military a disservice. But I'm sure others picked up on Mr. Christian's acceptance of others in his post....he did say most women get pregnant to get out of servce. Maybe only straight white men should be able to serve in the military. I guess I shouldnt forget that was almost 30 years ago. Thank god the times have changed.

I support my gay soldiers (and female too) as long as they have my back and support this great country.

Posted by: DCJUSTICE | February 9, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Also we can’t get over having women on submarines, there are other countries with women on submarines. Here is the reason, in those countries men and women share berthing and showers. There is no privacy issue but in the US we do everything by the political correct book.

Posted by: William2010 | February 9, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I have to laugh at these "warriors" some of whom got through basic training, run miles with 100 pds on the back, stare down enemy fire, do 10+ hour days, some of whom are ride out typhoons at sea, sandstorms in the desert, freezing weather, mud, muck, flak ... all these warriors who are supposed to be fearless enough to face all that, but a 6 minute shower, when they can get one, is just TOO much to bear for their country and the mission.

This is why everyone should understand this nonsense for the excuse it is.

Posted by: Amphigory | February 9, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Amphigory:

Your post is spot on. Funny how we are the roughest, toughest military EVER until suddenly confronted with a situation where someone may take a peek at our special parts in the shower.

Then suddenly we are delicate wilting flowers that must be protected.

Posted by: Hillman1 | February 9, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The same can be said for women, why cant they shower with the men. They also run miles with 100 pds on the back, stare down enemy fire, do 10+ hour days, some of whom are ride out typhoons at sea, sandstorms in the desert, freezing weather, mud, muck, flak ... But this is an unreasonable request. You know how much money the military could have saved not buiding two of every thing.

Posted by: William2010 | February 9, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Military Times 2009 annual poll of active duty Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard personnel:

58% are opposed to allowing homosexuals in the military, or repealing don't ask, don't tell. "If the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours."

Posted by: screwjob2 | February 9, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

William2010, gay guys are still guys, not women. A hot woman walks into a room full of guys and they are all looking at her. A hot gay guy walks into a room full of guys and they are NOT all looking at him like they would a woman. It's really that simple and probably why openly gay servicemen haven't already upset the cart, in the showers.

Here's something else, I saw someone write: "From basic training through discharge, I showered communally with gay troops all the time. Never once was I propositioned or did anyone try anything. I can't say the same for the raunchy horseplay of my heterosexual comrades."

Posted by: Amphigory | February 9, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

There shouldn't be a problem with sexual deviants serving openly in the military. They should get to wear pink uniforms and serve on the front lines with the muslims. Also fragging and soap parties will experience a rennisance.

Posted by: oldno7 | February 9, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Ten largest military forces in the world by number of active duty troops:

People's Republic of China
United States
India
North Korea
Russia
South Korea
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Vietnam

Number that allow homosexuals to serve:

ZERO

Posted by: screwjob2 | February 9, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

oldno7, if you had gay sex it would be "deviant" for you. It's not for them.

Move along, please! The rest of us are ready for the next evolution.

The homophobes, the by product of our last 'social experiment', need to be reminded who the enemies of this country really are. Our enemies are NOT the competent, dedicated, sworn and true soliders at their side.

Posted by: Amphigory | February 9, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

screwjob, you seem to be a perfect example of the arrogance of some in the US military and outside it too: We have people and coalition partners to spare! We don't _need_ anyone or anything! We are #1 and always will be!

Someday...someday...you'll throw a 'coalition party' and no one will come. That's what thinking like that will get you.

Posted by: Amphigory | February 9, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse


form three gay usa military divisions. permanently send the mentally ill buggers to the afghanistan province that boarders china.

how many expensive career queers in uniform will it take to defeat a bunch of poor hillbilly normal family men in the very dangerous land of allah?

do ask and do tell.

Posted by: therapy | February 9, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Amphigory, so are you saying that a gay men don't lust for hot men like straight men do for hot women? So the hot straight man that's talking a shower is not allowed to feel uncomfortable with a gay man, but a woman is allowed to feel uncomfortable showering in front of a man. Its still a double standard. I agree some people are comfortable with their sexuality, and don't care, but as a nation we are still prudes. Yes people in europe don't have a problem with gays showering with straights but they also have x-rated tv commercials and lots of nude beaches, because they don't feel that being nude is a private act.

Posted by: William2010 | February 9, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: tjhall1 | February 9, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse


Well, it would totally freak-out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: WylieD | February 9, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

tjhall, that's a factually incorrect statement, but consider this.

One doesn't join the military to do God's work, you join up ultimately to kill people, lay waste to our enemies in war, and fall in-line in order to do so.

So, if you want to be an individual missionary, do that; and if you want to be a warrior, do that.

And, by all means, don't be 'gay' if you believe what you wrote (and pray that you never have any gay kids, because then you'll really be in a bind).


"therapy", genocidal hatred like yours is what we all should be fighting against.

Posted by: Amphigory | February 10, 2010 3:45 AM | Report abuse

"58% are opposed to allowing homosexuals in the military, or repealing don't ask, don't tell. "If the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours."

Nonsense. There were threats of mass quittings when blacks were allowed in. There wer threats of mass quittings when women were allowed in.

Didn't happen either time.

And any soldier that really feels that wishy-washy about his job as protector of our country, I'm not sure we really want them anyway.

Posted by: Hillman1 | February 10, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

"Ten largest military forces in the world by number of active duty troops:

People's Republic of China
United States
India
North Korea
Russia
South Korea
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Vietnam "

Really? We should be taking moral guidance from China, Iran, and North Korea?

That's the standard we should set?

Posted by: Hillman1 | February 10, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company