Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

"Don't ask, don't tell": don't appeal

Three cheers for the ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ordering an immediate end to the "don’t ask, don't tell" policy that bans military service by those who are openly gay. Phillips is right that this policy "infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members."

As a general proposition, I think courts should be very wary of overturning decisions made by elected branches of government. Such judicial decisions can look like – and often are – the imposition of a judge's political views over the political views of those elected to office by voters, i.e. politicians. Politicians have every right to have political views; judges can't just impose their political views by fiat. Moreover, there is a danger that all of us can be inconsistent in the application of the principle of judicial restraint. We hail only those judicial impositions that happen to square with our politics.

So why, beyond my own feeling about this issue, do I think this case is different? If there is ever a case for judicial action, it is in areas where individual rights, particularly the rights of minorities, are being unfairly curtailed. And "don't ask, don't tell" is one of the most bizarre policies ever devised. You can be gay and serve – as long as nobody knows you are gay. Or as long as nobody who knows tells anyone else you are gay. Or as long as nobody finds out you are gay. It just doesn't make much sense, and what can be a greater violation of individual rights than the demand that someone keep an important part of his or her identity secret? Not to mention that the policy invited dishonesty -- and, potentially, intimidation and blackmail.

The only way the policy made sense was as a halfway house. Bill Clinton ran into a political firestorm at the beginning of his presidency when he proposed simply to end the ban on gays in the services. He wasn’t going to get what he wanted, so "don't ask, don't tell" was one of those classic centrist compromises that wasn't particularly coherent, but solved a political problem and allowed us to move on. Yet DADT never made sense as a long-term policy, and it should have been pushed aside long ago.

It's worth noting that the suit overturning the policy was brought by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group. They are a vestige of an older Republican Party that was genuinely consistent in standing up for individual rights, their very name harkening back to the party of Abraham Lincoln and the fight against slavery. The GOP needs more voices like theirs across a range of issues. Yet the direction of the party at the moment seems strongly against them. It's admirable that the Log Cabin GOPers could perform this service, but notable they had to do it through the Courts, since elected Republicans helped to block changes in the policy through the normal Congressional process.

It makes no sense for the Obama administration, which opposes DADT, to appeal this decision. It should work out a schedule with the court that would end the policy for good. And service members who have been discharged under DADT should be able to appeal their discharges and have a chance to serve their country again.

By E.J. Dionne  | October 13, 2010; 8:41 AM ET
Categories:  Dionne  | Tags:  E.J. Dionne  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A response to Jonah Goldberg on anti-elitism
Next: Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser, speaks to me

Comments

I see by your bio you've never been in the military. Not a problem until you start pontificating as if you know what is best for the military. I retired from the Army a while ago and recognized for my entire career I had given up many civil rights to maintain discipline and unit cohesion. If that had been an unacceptable trade off I was free to not reenlist at various intervals.

Why are we trying to fix something that ain't broke? I recall the SGM of the Army under Clinton having to resign because of heterosexual inappropriate behaviour. Has there been a definition of "openly gay" laid out? Let's get this straight before we plow ahead.

Posted by: theduck6 | October 13, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

By repealing DADT, we will be telling our Military men and women that they are just as capable of dealing with diversity in their ranks as those soldiers in Canada, Israel and several other countries. I realize that Military life is stressful, but I also realize that as the Military went through racial integration, a greater acceptance of women in differing roles in the Military and now the integration of gay and lesbian people, the Military will be better for it. Our Military has been outstanding through all the changes and I am confident they will continue to be.

Posted by: paris1969 | October 13, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Alas, the judge imposing her own will on the body politic in this case will provoke a backlash just as Roe did.

Posted by: edbyronadams | October 13, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I amin favor of serving openly, but I have a question about rules after DADT is shot down. With DADT, the military needed evidence of someone being gay before discharge. So now what? Without DADT, a service member can be discharged for being suspected of being gay without evidence, yes?

Posted by: CarolGBOS | October 13, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Since I have the opportunity to post the first comment on this column, here is a challenge to commenters who follow. Before you start braying about the Constitution and judges legislating from the bench again, please,

1) Present some evidence that you have read Article III of the Constitution and you therefore understand judicial review and the separation of powers.

2) The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States". Please cite the text of a subseqent amendment that revised this to "all straight persons".

3) Please explain why you think judicial review to overturn health care reform, duly passed by Congress and signed by the President, on Constitutional grounds is acceptable but judicial review of DADT is not. O.K., this doesn't apply to everyone who favors DADT, but I'm pretty sure it applies to most.

Full disclosure (not that it's anyone's business): I am not gay. I have never had sex with another man in my life, and I have been married to the same woman for more than 40 years.

Posted by: GordonCash | October 13, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

What's funny about this is that most people who have an opinion about it aren't in the military and have no intention of ever serving in the military.


Posted by: Benson | October 13, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

To theduck6 -

I hear what you're saying and respect your perspective, but most of the country thinks DADT is broke. I think it's broke because it requires competent, valuable service members to lie about who they are (which it seems would undermine unit cohesion). It also hurts straight soldiers by coddling them from the real world and making them weak - if they are threatened by working and living with a gay colleague who does his / her job, then how can they possibly defend the nation? I think our servicemen and women are much more mature than than the Mitch McConnels and John McCains of the world give them credit for. It's insulting to them.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | October 13, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Looks like a few other people posted while I was writing, so I wasn't first after all. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.

Posted by: GordonCash | October 13, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Looks like a few other people posted while I was writing, so I wasn't first after all. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.

Posted by: GordonCash | October 13, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

If it is true that homosexual react to men like ordinary men react to women, there will be conflict in showers and the close quarters of military life if ever the new policy goes into effect. No normal man relishes being the object of desire of another man. Why are not women allowed to serve in close proximity to men in the military? I mean living in the same barracks and showering together. Because that would be destructive of everything the military means- the same will happen when what Dionne wants goes into effect.

Posted by: mhr614 | October 13, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I've seen any homophobe that is concerned about "morale" be too concerned about this issue.

Sexual assault in military 'jaw-dropping,' lawmaker says
MILITARY SERVICE

July 31, 2008

A congresswoman said Thursday that her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being sexually assaulted while in the military.

A government report indicates that the numbers could be even higher.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House panel investigating the way the military handles reports of sexual assault.

She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her horror stories of being raped in the military.
Advertisement

"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent of the female veterans seen there say they were victims of sexual assault while serving in the military," said Harman, who has long sought better protection of women in the military.

"Twenty-nine percent say they were raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and downward spirals many of their lives have taken since.

"We have an epidemic here," she said. "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."

As of July 24, 100 women had died in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.

In 2007, Harman said, only 181 out of 2,212 reports of military sexual assaults, or 8 percent, were referred to courts martial. By comparison, she said, 40 percent of those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are prosecuted.

Defense statistics show that military commanders took unspecified action, which can include anything from punishment to dismissal, in an additional 419 cases.

But when it came time for the military to defend itself, the panel was told that the Pentagon's top official on sexual abuse, Dr. Kaye Whitley, was ordered not to show up despite a subpoena.

"I don't know what you're trying to cover up here, but we're not going to allow it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, said to the Defense official who relayed the news of Whitley's no-show. "This is unacceptable."

Rep. John Tierney, the panel's chairman and a Democrat from Massachusetts, angrily responded, "these actions by the Defense Department are inexplicable."

"The Defense Department appears to be willfully and blatantly advising Dr. Whitley not to comply with a duly authorized congressional subpoena," Tierney said.

An Army official who did testify said the Army takes allegations of sexual abuse extremely seriously. ....

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-31/us/military.sexabuse_1_sexual-assault-sexual-abuse-military-service?_s=PM:US

Posted by: James10 | October 13, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

mhr614: your comment makes no sense. not only is it factually incorrect, but since gays have been serving for decades and showering with straights already, if what you describe were true, the problem would have surfaced already. the policy thrown out is simply that if you are gay you keep it a secret, not that you don't shower.

GordonCash: great point. activism is in the eye of the beholder. As George Will has pointed out several times, it's a silly charge, as the Court is supposed to be activist when the legislature or executive branches infringe on individual liberties. One of the worst recent SCOTUS decisions was the eminent domain case where the liberal members of the court probably took great delight affirming the act of the local legislative body in taking land to give to a developer to improve the tax base. As George Will noted, conservatives should be careful what they ask for - that case needed one more activist to go the other way, not one less.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 13, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

This demonstrates the power of buzzwords, little more. DA/DT is NOT the problem and, by itself, ending it places gay service members at greater jeopardy, not less.

DA/DT is Executive Branch POLICY that currently mandates that the Armed Forces should limit their interest in and efforts to enforce a LAW. That law was written by the Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 125 "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex ... is guilty of sodomy." DA/DT is an Executive Order by the President and a poor compromise establishing policy - less powerful than law - that, to the greatest extent possible, military leaders should ignore their Constitutional duty to enforce that law.

DA/DT actually provides a twisted degree of protection for gay service members, not the reverse. Repealing it will remove the blinders established by policy, and commanders will be returned to their existing duty to investigate and, if necessary prosecute, acts of sodomy. Do I think that's a bad idea? Absolutely, but it IS the law.

If you want to fix the problem, Congress must change the law, which the Senate seems currently unwilling or unable to do, or the Judicial Branch must find it unconstitutional. Repealing Executive Branch policy won't get it done.

Repeal DA/DT and prosecutions will go up: change the law, and prosecutions will stop.

Posted by: qtrfoil85 | October 13, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Alas, the judge imposing her own will on the body politic in this case will provoke a backlash just as Roe did.

Posted by: edbyronadams | October 13, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

****

You're just upset because now you don't have an excuse for not joining the military.

Posted by: dcp26851 | October 13, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

to mhr614 -

you're reasoning is based on a few assumptions that I find questionable, namely -

1. straight men and women showering together is the same situation as straight men and gay men showering together
2. it's not possible for any man - gay or straight - to behave professionally when the situation demands it
3. Any situation - involving any combination of straight, gay, man, woman - in which somebody may (emphasis on may) be attracted to someone else in close proximity would lead to the destruction of the military.

I think all of these assumptions are insulting to members of the armed services - they are adults.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | October 13, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The DOJ has 60 days to appeal the ruling. Isn't a Joint Chiefs of Staff report on how to implement a change (if they're able to) due about the same time?

Never really understood this issue or the arguments against repeal. As group of individuals supposedly volunteering to fight for the "rights" of all citizens, to deny those same rights within their ranks seems at odds with a big part of their purpose.

Based on what information we are being provided, it seems to show that as senior ranking officers retire, the willingness and attitudes to accept gay men and women as equals in the ranks is increasing. These fine men and women (gay and straight) should represent the population they serve and be above the pettiness shown in our current political climate.

Posted by: pv2bdrco | October 13, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The DOJ has 60 days to appeal the ruling. Isn't a Joint Chiefs of Staff report on how to implement a change (if they're able to) due about the same time?

Never really understood this issue or the arguments against repeal. As group of individuals supposedly volunteering to fight for the "rights" of all citizens, to deny those same rights within their ranks seems at odds with a big part of their purpose.

Based on what information we are being provided, it seems to show that as senior ranking officers retire, the willingness and attitudes to accept gay men and women as equals in the ranks is increasing. These fine men and women (gay and straight) should represent the population they serve and be above the pettiness shown in our current political climate.

Posted by: pv2bdrco | October 13, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The Obama White House fumbled the ball on this issue, ignoring the matter when it was before Congress. They allowed the Republican party leadership to turn it into a political "stunt". This is their chance to right their wrong and NOT pursue an appeal. I'm hoping they don't drop the ball again.

Posted by: jaynashvil | October 13, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I amin favor of serving openly, but I have a question about rules after DADT is shot down. With DADT, the military needed evidence of someone being gay before discharge. So now what? Without DADT, a service member can be discharged for being suspected of being gay without evidence, yes?

Posted by: CarolGBOS | October 13, 2010 9:42 AM
**************************************************
No. You are mistaken. Being gay will not be an issue which could be cause for discharge. It will be just another fact of a servicemembers' identity (black or white, male or female).

Posted by: lgaide | October 13, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I amin favor of serving openly, but I have a question about rules after DADT is shot down. With DADT, the military needed evidence of someone being gay before discharge. So now what? Without DADT, a service member can be discharged for being suspected of being gay without evidence, yes?

Posted by: CarolGBOS | October 13, 2010 9:42 AM
**************************************************
No. You are mistaken. Being gay will not be an issue which could be cause for discharge. It will be just another fact of a servicemembers' identity (black or white, male or female).

Posted by: lgaide | October 13, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Mr Dionne again flies in the face of public opinion as shown in this paper's poll shown below the article.

But that is his right. He has had so many chances to exercise his right to do that in the last 24 months -- again mostly contrary to public opinion.

Posted by: jimbob3 | October 13, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The question was raised, how could this decision be imposed on us by a court? Why can't we listen to what The Military wants on this issue? It's a legitimate question.

The answer is because we live in this amazing human experiment called democracy -- a Constitutional Republic to be specific -- a place where the Armed Forces take their orders from the elected civilian government, not the other way around. When a citizen enters the Armed Forces, s/he swears an oath not to a King, but to uphold our Constitution, to obey our laws, to maintain that order and framework. That is their proud role in this system, and we must never forget that.

Our Founders gave us Democracy, and they understood that it is a messy thing; it is imperfect. Sometimes unpopular things are done for the sake of the greater good. But always, the fundamental rights are enshrined and protected. If you have used this website to vent your frustration at recent developments, you have living proof of it.

Posted by: KenG3 | October 13, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Contrary to what Dionne believes, a single federal court judge in California should not have the final say in this matter. I think it highly likely that the plaintiffs in this case carefully selected where they filed suit. Most every lawsuit has to start with one judge, but that should not be the end here. The Department of Justice is supposed to represent the United States -- and that includes citiizens on both sides of the issue. Although the correct result seems clear to Dionne, others disagree, and the issue here is a broader one of the extent to which the federal courts can dictate how the military operates. "Civil rights" are logically defined differently in the military than in society as a whole. I don't know what the correct answer is here, but the DOJ has an obligation to appeal to the 9th Circuit, at the very least.

Posted by: willdd | October 13, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jimbob3
Mr Dionne again flies in the face of public opinion as shown in this paper's poll shown below the article.

But that is his right. He has had so many chances to exercise his right to do that in the last 24 months -- again mostly contrary to public opinion.

You mean the 60-80% (according to half a dozen polls in the last 2 years) of the public that thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly? I think he is in alignment with public opinion here.

And are you talking about the unscientific reader poll which says that 75% of the readers think the Administration should let the ruling against DADT stand?

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't think you are correctly interpreting these articles. Maybe I have completely missed what you are saying.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | October 13, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

It's not a matter of bigotry. It's fundamentally a privacy issue. After a career in the military, I can attest that sometimes there's not a lot of it. The little that you have is important.

If you want to achieve clarity on this issue, do away with gender privacy in the military. Men and women, gay and straight, would all use the same latrines, showers, and barracks.

Posted by: xmptle | October 13, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

another wapo whining hack with the same old BS

Posted by: pofinpa | October 13, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Alas, the judge imposing her own will on the body politic in this case will provoke a backlash just as Roe did.

Posted by: edbyronadams | October 13, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse
==========================================
It's the LAW that she's imposing!! You people kill me with the BS!! When rulings go against what YOU feel they should be, the Judge is Activist or Liberal or whatever buzz word you use at the time. As if the Judge is not doing what he/she was sworn to do. Another thing, the Gays have been around since air and have been serving in the military every since! What's the big deal if they are no longer going to have lie about who they are? You guys act as if they are going to be running around in Feather boas or something. NO!! They are going to be the same as they've ALWAYS been, SOLDIERS!!

Posted by: Angryman | October 13, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I've never served in the military, but as an American citizen and taxpayer, the military exists to serve and protect me. As an American citizen, I expect the Constitution to be applied equally within the military. Therefore I appreciate this ruling.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

1) The left cares not at all about access to the military they publicly despise

2) "Gays" in the military is to undercut the institution
...(just like Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the 'right' war to the left when Bush was in office, today Afghanistan is less loved by the left.....)

3) Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

4) Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...


In short, homosexuals in the military is a divisive straw-man assault by the left.

Posted by: georgedixon1 | October 13, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

@xmptle, you might have an argument if tens of thousands of gays were not *already* serving in the military; they are already sharing barracks and latrines; the only thing that *might* change WHEN DADT ends is that str8 members may "know" that there is a gay servicemember; thus, the only thing that changes (maybe) is knowledge; if the str8 memeber cant "handle" this knowledge, (and I do concede we have been told over and over and over again how str8 US military guys are "scared to death" of gay people), then they should leave the military - we don't need scaredy-cats; US an Hungary are the ONLY NATO militaries with str8 members who are apparently so scared of gay people

i should also note that there is ABSOLUTELY no argument about how mobidly homophobic the military is, so it's not like very many guys are going to "come out" as it will definitely stop their career in their tracks (no more promotions, etc.)

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Thank God...military service is now a viable option for EJ.

Posted by: twann9852 | October 13, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

It's not a matter of bigotry. It's fundamentally a privacy issue. After a career in the military, I can attest that sometimes there's not a lot of it. The little that you have is important.

If you want to achieve clarity on this issue, do away with gender privacy in the military. Men and women, gay and straight, would all use the same latrines, showers, and barracks.
===========================================
This is how fire departments across the country have handled it. It worked out just fine. Amazing how well things can go when the people involved act like adults and take pride in doing their jobs well.

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 13, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"Mr Dionne again flies in the face of public opinion as shown in this paper's poll shown below the article.

But that is his right. He has had so many chances to exercise his right to do that in the last 24 months -- again mostly contrary to public opinion.

Posted by: jimbob3 | October 13, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse "

Ah public opinion, the last refuge of idiots. When it comes to applying the Constitution equally, public opinion is meaningless. Public opinion in the 60's dictated that blacks be treated as second-class citizens. Public opinion in the 20's was that women shouldn't vote. Take a minute to think about that, Sparky.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

this will energize the Republican base...
in a week I will vote...
and so will millions of others who are allowed to vote early...
guess who we are not voting for...
the party

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 13, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

the party...
of no jobs will be out of a job come january...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 13, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

actually georgedixon, homosexuality is statistically almost exactly as "normal" as left-handedness.

So we should ban left handers from the military.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Republicans hate gays, that much is clear. I hope minorities of all kinds get out and vote this November to make their displeasure known.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

actually georgedixon, homosexuality is statistically almost exactly as "normal" as left-handedness.

So we should ban left handers from the military.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The anti-repeal people need to answer the question of why every other industrialized western nation's militaries, plus others, have had gays serving openly for years without a problem, without destroying their "unit cohesion."

So what is wrong with the U.S. military, with U.S. soldiers, that they can't adapt to a policy that the military of all these other countries has done easily and effectively? Are U.S. soldiers wusses? Are U.S. soldiers bigots? What is wrong with U.S. soldiers? No other country.

Posted by: markiejoe | October 13, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

What about the rights of the normal people?

Posted by: carlbatey | October 13, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

What about the rights of the normal people?

Posted by: carlbatey | October 13, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: georgedixon1
1) The left cares not at all about access to the military they publicly despise

2) "Gays" in the military is to undercut the institution
...(just like Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the 'right' war to the left when Bush was in office, today Afghanistan is less loved by the left.....)

3) Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

4) Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...


In short, homosexuals in the military is a divisive straw-man assault by the left.


George -

You post sounds angry and I think your generalizations get to the heart of what is going wrong in this country today. I consider myself on the left and I care about the military - that's why I think the policy should be repealed. If we kick people out for reasons that have nothing to do with their training, then that weakens us as a nation. If talented service members cannot be honest about who they are, then that undermines unit cohesion.

To you other points - 3) I guess that would mean heterosexuality too is as normal as pedophilia or necrophilia? I'm just trying to understand your logic, because in fact most male pedophiles target young girls.

4) I am curious what what definition are you using for mental illness? Typically it is associated with subjective distress or disability and one's sexual orientation (gay or straight) is not inherently distressful or disabling. Bigotry is distressing and disabling though... especially to the bigoted individual.

And I think the 12,000 people kicked out by DADT would not call this a fake issue. These are real people just like you and me who have had their lives wrecked by a bad policy.

Try having some compassion - the world needs a little more of this.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | October 13, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

@markiejoe, the answer is simple - we have been told ad nauseum by miilitary leaders that str8 US servicemen are "scared to death" of gay people, and if they KNOW a gay person is in their unit or around them, the str8 servicem embers will (all) become paralyzed with fear and freeze (unlike the able men/women in every other NATO military except Hungary). So, in short, our military has the effectiveness of, um, Hungary. Yay.

The scary thing is that if an entity wanted to defeat our military, apparently (and according to the military iteself), all one would have to do is rush a group of openly gay guys towards our troops and they would retreat in mortal fear.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Oh - I hope they keep the "Don't Ask" part of it!

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 13, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

such shallow thinking. Dionne should go back to school.

Posted by: miglefitz | October 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Why are we trying to fix something that ain't broke? I recall the SGM of the Army under Clinton having to resign because of heterosexual inappropriate behaviour. Has there been a definition of "openly gay" laid out? Let's get this straight before we plow ahead.

Posted by: theduck6 | October 13, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

****
Thanks for your service. I served as well, and I strongly believe that one of the best things about the military is that your advancement is based first and foremost upon your ability to do the job. It doesn't matter if you are black, brown, red, etc. Why should this be any different for gays and lesbians?

It is a totally separate issue if there is homosexual behavior in the barracks or harassment -- that is a CONDUCT issue and should be dealt with by NJP or court-martial. But if it is simply a matter of an otherwise-qualified member simply being able to acknowledge the fact that he has a boyfriend back home -- what is the harm?

Posted by: flynnb | October 13, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

and the wingnut/teabagger record of hypocrisy and craziness continues...

NEW YORK — State liquor license records show that New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino had once collected rent from two gay clubs located in buildings he owned in downtown Buffalo, according to a published report.

The report in the Daily News on Wednesday comes just after Paladino told a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders that he opposed schools for what he called "brainwashing" of students into thinking that being gay is just another choice and "not the way God created us."

The newspaper reported that a club named Cobalt operated as a gay bar in 2004 and most of 2005 and was run by Paladino's son, William. It was housed in a building owned by one of Paladino's many companies, Huron Group LLC, the newspaper said. The club was run under another corporate name.
..................

So... Paladino presents himself to the rubes as anti-gay, yet eagerly took rent money from gay bars.

Perfect. Whenever you hear some right wing loon spouting off about how we should all be afraid of gay people, you know you're listening to an idiot.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | October 13, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

and the wingnut/teabagger record of hypocrisy and craziness continues...

NEW YORK — State liquor license records show that New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino had once collected rent from two gay clubs located in buildings he owned in downtown Buffalo, according to a published report.

The report in the Daily News on Wednesday comes just after Paladino told a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders that he opposed schools for what he called "brainwashing" of students into thinking that being gay is just another choice and "not the way God created us."

The newspaper reported that a club named Cobalt operated as a gay bar in 2004 and most of 2005 and was run by Paladino's son, William. It was housed in a building owned by one of Paladino's many companies, Huron Group LLC, the newspaper said. The club was run under another corporate name.
..................

So... Paladino presents himself to the rubes as anti-gay, yet eagerly took rent money from gay bars.

Perfect. Whenever you hear some right wing loon spouting off about how we should all be afraid of gay people, you know you're listening to an idiot.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | October 13, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

To say you had to serve in the military to oppose this policy is ridiculous. I am not black, hispanic, or a woman, yet I support equal rights for blacks, hispanics, and women. The plain fact is that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was ALWAYS unconstitutional, in direct violation of the first ammendment of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, all opinions supporting DADT are IRRELEVENT. And I am sick of reading the bigoted opinions of those who still support the policy, because that is what these posters are, bigots. The courts have corrected an incredible injustice. There is no need for further discussion on this issue. Absolutely none. CASE CLOSED.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | October 13, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Despite my support for full equality, I am torn. Perhaps we SHOULD reinstate an outright ban on gays in the military. Then, after a judge rules it unconstitutional, we can ban the other 90%.

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 13, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

DigDug1. By your argument, it would be OK to set up surveillance cameras in you home so long as you didn’t know it. And when you found out, it would still be OK because the system had been operating for some time with no loss to you. Somehow, I can’t agree.

It’s also interesting that you resort to an ad hominem attack. I’m neither afraid nor homophobic. My comment was neither for nor against gays in the military. I’m old and retired now, so my opinion on that issue doesn’t matter. Times change. My comment was intended to put the issue in a clearer perspective.

Posted by: xmptle | October 13, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I see by your bio you've never been in the military. Not a problem until you start pontificating as if you know what is best for the military. I retired from the Army a while ago and recognized for my entire career I had given up many civil rights to maintain discipline and unit cohesion. If that had been an unacceptable trade off I was free to not reenlist at various intervals.

Why are we trying to fix something that ain't broke? I recall the SGM of the Army under Clinton having to resign because of heterosexual inappropriate behaviour. Has there been a definition of "openly gay" laid out? Let's get this straight before we plow ahead.

Posted by: theduck6
__________
Why fix something that ain't broke? Because it isn't broke for YOU. 13,000 patriotic soldiers (pilots, nurses, Drs. Translators, etc) had their careers ended. You don't have to give up your civil rights in the the terms they do. You don't get a witch hunt about a personal relationship. Gays have served honorably in every war, ask about WWII, Vietnam, etc. Do your job and lket them do theur job. Isreal, Brit, France, Australia, Canada, etc all allow service.

Posted by: cadam72 | October 13, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Gee, bigots and gay-bashers are mad. Shocking.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Funny how theduck6 rants about outsiders making this decision since he isn't even in the military anymore either.

Sorry, theduck6, but we have something called civilian control of the military. Deal with it.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 13, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse


Dionne, queen of the leftists, is wrong on the facts. It is not a "policy" it is United States law. This lone California judge started a legal process that will end when the Supreme Court of the United States overturns her ruling.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I served in the USMC honorably for 11 years and YES I am gay. As I did not come out till mid way through my career it was a difficult decision when it came time to decide whether or not to re-enlist. I wanted to stay but the political climate was against me back then, mostly due to my MOS which required a TOP Secret Clearance. DADT simply asked me to do something that my concious could not handle, which is LIE. Most of my friends and well as my CO were aware of my homosexuality. However, I was professional and as such kept my personal life outside of my military life. But to ask someone to LIE in order to keep their job when "integrity" is at the core of your being is simply wrong.

The climate is such that most people have been sufficiently exposed to gays that they understand we are no different than others and pose no harm. As a matter of fact if you look at the record of service members released for being gay you will find that most were exemplary at their jobs.

Posted by: Luwarn2 | October 13, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Teabagger gay bashing is a glaring reason not to vote for these hypocrites on Nov. 2.

Palidino has rented to gay night clubs, mormon Elder Boyd K Packer and Tony Perkins both claim their homophobic religions love and respect gays and the Donohue Catholic Church bashes gays from its bully pulpit while hiding pervert priests from civil prosectuion.

No more of this "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" self righteous pomposity. Don't vote for these people on November 2.

Posted by: areyousaying | October 13, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse


Of course Barry is going to appeal. This is not an issue that you leave to a lower-level court with a single judge. The United States Congress passed this law and only Congress can repeal it.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I've seen that a number of servicepeople have gotten into trouble for 'telling'. Has anyone ever gotten in trouble for 'asking'?

Posted by: surrnina | October 13, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

What's funny about this is that most people who have an opinion about it aren't in the military and have no intention of ever serving in the military.Posted by: Benson
-------------------------------------
What's even funnier is that has nothing to do with anything, especially this decision. Our military is controlled by the people, unless you think living under a military dictatorship is better than living under a free democracy.
The soldiers have no vote in this. They follow orders, period. Their commanders follow orders from our elected civilian leaders, period.
Welcome to America, Land Of The Free.

Posted by: cjbass55 | October 13, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

screwjob, yes only congress can "repeal" a law, however, a court can deem any law unconstitutional (suppose, for example, congress passed a law stating that all newpapers had to be shut down)

conlaw, 101

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

LOL @ screwjob21!

No, the process will end with DADT is repealed.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 13, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

What does a person's sexual orientation have to do with their fighting ability?? If a gay soldier can put rounds on enemy targets, I'm all for the inclusion.

What another person does on their personal time, in their personal space (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is totally their business.

Posted by: massmedia77 | October 13, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

@xmptle, it was not an attack - the crux of the military's position in keeping DADT is that servicemen are just simply "scared" of (openly) gay people; like the Hungary military (the only other NATO military that is scared of gay people).

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

What does a person's sexual orientation have to do with their fighting ability?? If a gay soldier can put rounds on enemy targets, I'm all for the inclusion.

What another person does on their personal time, in their personal space (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is totally their business.

Posted by: massmedia77 | October 13, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse


This judicial process started with a lone California judge and it will end when the Supreme Court of the United States overturns the lower court ruling.

The Supreme Court has already given an opinion on this matter. They rejected a case less in 2009 on the grounds that Congress should decided the matter, not the courts. For the same reasons they will overturn this California judge.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

screjob, dont be so confident, as I am sure you are aware after reading the opinions in each of the previous cases, this case is based on differnet legal grounds :)

again, conlaw 101

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"If it is true that homosexual react to men like ordinary men react to women, there will be conflict in showers and the close quarters of military life if ever the new policy goes into effect."

I don't think it would be healthy for an openly gay man to oggle his fellow soldiers in the shower as a hetero man would oggle a naked woman. I am almost guaranteeing you that someone in the shower with you (and me, I'm a veteran) was gay. My question to you:

Why waste time worrying about if some dude is checking you out if you're not gay? If everybody acts accordingly...wash and dry and keep it moving. Seems like too much time is being spent worrying about something that really doesn't concern you.

Posted by: massmedia77 | October 13, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse


The Supreme Court can also issue a writ of prohibition to the lower court, with or without an appeal by the justice department. The grounds for overturning a California judge is Article I Section 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The matter is now before Congress as the Court is well aware.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I've always assumed American soldiers were tough and brave enough to face down bullets, missiles, and bombs...

Yet a gay man walks into their barracks and they start whining and crying like little babies.

Man up.

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

Americans join the military E.J. not gays, heteros, blacks, hispanics!!

The groupism, which is the left wing Democrats and their pontificates, is out of control!

The military(I'm a Vietnam Vet) is not a social experimental, but it is a killing machine of citizens all. Sexuality has no purpose or place in a killing machine!!

When you join you know this a you swear to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution! Not gays or anybody else in this great nation!

Get over it E.J.


Posted by: jjcrocket14 | October 13, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

screwjob, again, you are correct so long as the legislative branch doesnt enact unconstitutional laws; if congress oversteps its authority and enacts unconstitutional laws, a court can (and must) overturn them; why do you think the right wing tea bag whackjobs are suing to have the health care law overturned on the grounds that it is unconstitutional?!?

so wait, a court can overturn health care law, but not DADT?

again, I must urge you, conlaw 101

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I think we can at least all agree that WashPo needs to seriously upgrade their servers - and stop relying on a MacIIe

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I've never served in the military, but as an American citizen and taxpayer, the military exists to serve and protect me. As an American citizen, I expect the Constitution to be applied equally within the military. Therefore I appreciate this ruling.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 10:55 AM

Exactly!

Posted by: lizgwiz | October 13, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse


Congress has adjourned. The current House repeal of DADT becomes null and void when the new Congress convenes on January the 3rd. It will be up to proponents of repeal to start up the matter all over again, in the new House, next year. Will Democrats still control the House after the midterm elections?

20 days until Election Day.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

screwjob, it really doesnt matter, because it is absolutely guaranteed that within 5 years DADT will be history, and gay marriage will be legal in most if not all states; it's only a matter of a little mroe time before the tea baggers/bigots lose lose lose!

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Obviously both the author and the judge haven't been reading the news. The government and the DoD are in the process of withdrawing the DADT policy. So why is the judge even involved? The US Military, the finest in the world bar none, is pretty busy right now and one might even say it has its hands full. It is trying to do the right thing on every level which means that it must come up with an acceptable process for changing the policy. There are many items to be reviewed and actions to be taken. Given that the US Government does not recognize same sex partners in many of their insurance and support plans the military is going to have to come to grips with that point. In spite of the enlightened civilian society there are still many problems there that manifest themselves even in the military world such as housing (community showers, open bay barricks, etc. etc. you know privacy issues). In the military all are treated the same (an ideal the civilian community should try) and so the openingly gay member will have to come to grips with military life and the lack of privacy shared by all. There will be thousands of issues to be addressed and it takes time. So for you such as Dionne and the judge I appreciate your input to National security but the military is not a social program and must first and foremost ensure that good order and safety of our Airmen, Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers comes first. So patience please. The ruling was out of place and irresponsible.

Posted by: staterighter | October 13, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

E.J., let's take a step back and notice how despite all the GOP/Tea kicking and screaming, all their fearmonger tactics for 2010, they are 0 of 4 in court.

Arizona SB1070, California Prop 8, Michigan affirmation last week of Obamacare, and now this DADT ruling. Tough One...

Sorry Fox disciples. You are a vocal minority. Reason is not with you, nor is the nation.

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | October 13, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court can also issue a writ of prohibition to the lower court, with or without an appeal by the justice department. The grounds for overturning a California judge is Article I Section 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The matter is now before Congress as the Court is well aware.

Posted by: screwjob21
____________________________
wrong again. no court is prevented from ruling on the constitutionality of existing legislation at any time, whether Congress is reviewing the subject or not.

staterigher: same answer. A court cannot duck a case properly before it by telling the parties that the case might become moot at some indefinite point in the future. it might not.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 13, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Don’t ask, Don’t Tell is an abortion of ignorant America homophobia and a rebuke of our constitution not unlike slavery, segregation or limiting women’s rights.

Are military personnel more homophobic, more ignorant or just more bigoted than the average American?

Good question. We have found out they like killing civilians but yet we don’t ask soldiers if they like killing people but they ask about………….???????/

How did America get so stupid? Conservatives!

How did Americans become so un-American? Conservatives!

The same group that tried to stop the formation of America and provided the current economic crisis.

Who needs the anti-Christ when you have conservatives.

Posted by: nacirema | October 13, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

staterighter, fortunately for this country, the US constitution is the supreme law of the land and exactly WHAT the military aims to defend; thus, unconstitutional laws (e.g., DADT) take precedence over a particular military action (in other words, denial of civil rights is a much 'bigger issue' than any military conflict);

as to "community showers, open bay barricks, etc. etc. you know privacy issues," that issue is entirely moot as thousands of gay servicemen are ALREADY using "community showers, open bay barricks" the ONLY thing that MAY change with DADT ending is the 'knowledge' by a str8 servicemenmber that another member is gay; if the str8 guy is scared of gay people, then they are likely not combat ready; every other NATO military (except Hungary) can apparently "handle" this knowledge; why str8 US military people are so scared baffles me

finally, as I pointed out before, when DADT ends there will likely be very few people that "come out" given the notoriously homophobic/racist nature of the US armed forces where one's career would immediately stopped in its tracks (for example, there is clearly no way someone like you would promote a gay soldier in rank if you know they are gay); there is very little incentive for gay soldiers to come out; ending DADT merely keeps people from being 'booted' when they are outed by a homophobic military member who is scared of them

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse


Some people rely on name calling and insults either because they do not understand the judicial process and/or their position lacks the votes in Congress, or they simply want to stifle discussion. No matter.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

When telling the truth is part of the code for honorable service, DADT has put every gay soldier and every buddy of a gay soldier in a compromised and threatened position, and has also put our government's talents and specialized resources in unnecessary jeopardy - we've ejected thousands of highly trained and committed men and women over these last years. Now that can end.

Hopefully the administration will see the logic of letting the political argument simply fade and allow the military to make the vital adjustments they were planning to make anyway, with an official announcement around Thanksgiving or Christmas that this is the course of action and it's now a done deal as the writing's been on the wall for some time and the public mood and politics have been moving in this direction as well...

Posted by: thanksforfish | October 13, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Obama didn't do this the way Truman de-segregated the U.S.Army. If this had been a first act he would not have disappointed so many of his supporters. I know he was focused on being bi-partisan and he had no way of knowing that there would be NO bi-partisanship on this or any other matters, that the GOP was interested only in his destruction. But when this quickly became obvious, he should have acted.

Posted by: m_richert | October 13, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Here's the BEST thing about all this: DADT will end shortly, and when it does, the tea-baggers better then be able to offer PROOF that the military can no longer operate/function.

For example, wingnuts said that if gay marriage was legalized, "traditional marriages would end in divorce" and "communities will be destroyed." Since 5 states not permit gay marriage, I do not know of ANY changes in hetero divorce rates or towns that have been "destroyed." So, with respect to DADT, you better be ready to show us proof that suddently the military could no longer function, since thats what you promise will happen when (not if) DADT ends.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are reprobate hypocrites. They seem to take great delight in eroding what is strong, what is sublime, what is traditional, what is tried-and-true.

When they start running their mouths about "constitutionality" they become practical illiterates who are completely out of their league. They are inevitably reduced to invoking the most insipid and transparent sanctimony, ultimately finishing up their "argument" with the usual JournOList attack words.

Deranged, demented, benighted, and possibly lunatic.

Posted by: finsher771 | October 13, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

m_richert, you are absolutely correct. But I think there's a rub - I honestly believe that Obama is not very "gay friendly" and in fact does not wholeheartedly believe in equality. I think he says what gays 'want' to hear.

In this regard, it is disappointing. We know that Bush, Palin, Romney, Cheney et. al do not believe in equality and probably think gays should be thrown in a wood chipper. But when they provide their views, at least those views can be believed. I think Obama is not being honest with the gay community.

The proof of the pudding will be whether he appeals this decision. He has stated repeatedly (dozens of times) that he believes DADT should end, but if he appeals this decision, he will show his "true" hand. I think he WILL appeal, and his true view of equal rights for gays will be glaringly obvious.

And if he is indeed so two faced, I will do everything I can to oppose his re-election (I certainly won't donate $2,000 and bundle $68,500 in 2012!).

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse


The U.S. Supreme Court can, and has, issued a writ of prohibition against a lower federal court in the past, when the SC thinks the lower court acted improperly.

The current SC has also refused to hear a constitutional challenge to DADT just last year, on the grounds that the Obama administration should be driving this issue with Congress:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html

This is not over yet.

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 13, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

E.J. is right, Judge Phillips is right, and all those folks who posted above that the real issue here is the civil right of gay servicemen and women to be treated as equals under the law. We purport to be a nation governed by LAWS, not by (homophobic) men, and we expect our judges to intervene when Congress or the Executive branch enacts or enforces laws which interfere with our constitutionally protected rights. Where was the protest from the right about "activist" judges when the SCOTUS reversed a hundred years of precedent in the abominable Citizens United decision?
Mr. President, if you instruct the DoJ to appeal this decision, you will reinforce yet again the perception that you are not the same man we campaigned for in 2008, and discourage many more of us from going to the polls next month. Next time Gibbs whines about the "enthusiasm gap," this is another example of why it exists. You are accountable for your campaign promises, sir, and the whole country is watching.

Posted by: sailorashore | October 13, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

RField7 says:

"...despite all the GOP/Tea kicking and screaming, all their fearmonger tactics for 2010, they are 0 of 4 in court.

"Sorry Fox disciples. You are a vocal minority. Reason is not with you, nor is the nation."

=======

See what I mean? This is liberal derangement and deliberate obtuseness to the point where you have to consider whether it crosses into pathological abnormality of the psyche.

As if what "the courts" say, peopled by liberal-activist judges as they often are, represents the mood of America.

As if FOX News and conservative outlets don't mop the floor with each and every liberal "news" outlet.

As if all signs don't point to Americans turning *en masse* against the "ruling class" Democrats, as if all harbingers don't indicate a massive shellacking for leftist Democrats -- in this upcoming and in future elections.

Liberals are nothing short of deluded. I have to wonder how much of the abject ignorance and up-is-down illogic is deliberately self-imposed.

Posted by: finsher771 | October 13, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

screwjob, did you even read that article? Trust me, if the Obama administration upholds DADT (as I suspect they will, because I believe BO supports it internally), I guarantee you SCOTUS will hear the case (at this point, they have deferred the decision pending congress repealing the law). If congress doesnt act to repeal DADT (if, for example, a lot of right wingnuts win the midterms, as expected), SCOTUS will grant cert and hear a DADT case very quickly.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

@finsher, lol, an "activist" judge is nothing more than the label for a judge that a radical right wingnut disagrees with; and by the way, almost all of the "activist" judges ruling on gay issues in the last two years have been registered republicans and/or nominated/appointed by republicans (ironic, eh'?)

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Rightwingnuts lose again. That's the story of American history, and why our country is so great despite momentary setbacks at the hands of the forces of bigotry and stupidity.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 13, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The only people who should be allowed to have a vote and an opinion on this topic are soldiers -- not judges, not politicians and not hack writers for super partisan fish-wrap newspapers.

Posted by: BadNews | October 13, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The only people who should be allowed to have a vote and an opinion on this topic are soldiers -- not judges, not politicians and not hack writers for super partisan fish-wrap newspapers.

Posted by: BadNews | October 13, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

You are wrong, wrong, wrong Dionne but I would expect nothing else from you.

Having seen the negative effect these people have on morale, no good can come from this action.

Posted by: apdseal | October 13, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: edbyronadams
“Alas, the judge imposing her own will on the body politic in this case will provoke a backlash just as Roe did.”
===========================================
Alas, another ultra-right wing religious type who wants to bash Pro-Choice and Pro-Sexual Equality FREEDOM of individuals.
Please immigrate to Italy, specifically, the Vatican so you can live back in the dark ages of idiotic dogma without imposing it on the rest of us!

Posted by: lufrank1 | October 13, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I think our young men and women in uniform will handle this ruling on their own. They have a job to do and are dedicated to the task at hand. Race, gender, religious preference and sexual preference are of little consequence when one must trust and rely on another to watch out for his/her well being.

I wish everyone would respond to the WaPo article, "Deadlines for holiday mail to troops announced", and demand to know why our brave young military are not receiving their ballots. If they can assure our military get their X-mas gifts, why not something more important - their right to vote!

Posted by: inmanorj | October 13, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

BadNews: The only people who should be allowed to have a vote and an opinion on this topic are soldiers.

Wrong - soldiers don't get a vote. They obey orders. If the policy is changed or ruled unconstitutional, the soldiers will have to respect that or be discharged. I have faith in the professionalism of our military and believe ending this policy will be a non-event.

Posted by: jake14 | October 13, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

To all the ex (or current) military who oppose gays in the military (and no I have not served but know many straights AND gays who have). First I acknowledge those that oppose repeal are fragile and easily tempted to an alternate life style. They might be Marines or tough against some but when confronted with someone who might like them and isn't the opposite sex they are unable to defend themselves and are reduced to whimpering in a corner. Of course this is unusual since every military force since the beginning of time has operated with gays fighting side-by-side. It is only the American who is unable to cope with this, please pity them.

Now these same fragile creatures will easily rape and degrade a woman serving but that's "good ole boys being normal". If DADT worked straights wouldn't go after gays who obeyed the rules, didn't fraternize, didn't "come on" to anyone but were investigated and forced to admit their sexual orientation. DADT was ignored and many foreign language experts were kicked out when the need is the greatest. That's stupid.

If these "brave" soldiers are so certain they are too hot to be ignored, that everyone will lust after them that they face terror in the shower - honestly what babies but hey if approached file a complaint -- just like the women are supposed to be allowed to do when they are harrassed, raped and treated like dirt - how does it feel soldier? Actually I'm betting that 99.9% of the gays in the service will still be MORE professional and take pride in their work. They are interested in staying alive not getting a date.

When military was integrated these same "fears" were all the whites could talk about -- it was wrong then, discrimination is wrong now.

Posted by: Lemon7221 | October 13, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Our military will be just fine when gays are able to openly acknowledge they are gay.

Gays are serving, honorably, now. Why would a soldier, sailer, airman, or marine think the buddy he trusts today is not someone to trust tomorrow, when he finds out that buddy is gay? The buddy has not made a pass, has not raped anyone, has not acted in some way that seems perverted. The only things that change when you know someone is gay are what you project based on fear.

There will be some who can't handle it. The military is better off without them.

To leave DADT in place or to return to a "no gays" policy is just stupid. We can, and should, move on.

Posted by: amelia45 | October 13, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

By all means, let's put Lady Gaga and judges in charge of military policies.

Posted by: Benson | October 13, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Dionne! Yet again an article of yours makes me want to vomit! Have you EVER in your life served one second in the armed forces? Ever lived with guys for months out in a combat zone? Ever been shot at? Ever had to trust a buddy with your life? You don't know JACK about what it's like in the military....After 24 years in the Army I think I might know a thing or two about the social code and core value system of where most of our volunteer military comes from.... It couldn't be more different than the northeast, liberal, Hollywood, university cocoon that spawns such clueless wonders as you, Obama, and John F'ing Kerry. You all think the military is a big social experiment where you can play with the rules and the culture.... Whether it's your pseudo "shock and revulsion" at Tailhook or your faux horror at jump wings pounded into chests or the blame the victims which you all did after an Islamist slaughtered soldiers at Ft. hood. You and your ilk absolutely DISGUST me - so willing to send men off to a war and risk their lives while you quietly plan for our withdrawal and defeat. You are moral cowards. You are quitters. You are losers. You are traitors to your country. You want gays in the military? Fine! Don't think it wont affect unit cohesion? How stupidly naive... Got kids? If you like it so much then put them into harms way!

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Dionne! Yet again an article of yours makes me want to vomit! Have you EVER in your life served one second in the armed forces? Ever lived with guys for months out in a combat zone? Ever been shot at? Ever had to trust a buddy with your life? You don't know JACK about what it's like in the military....After 24 years in the Army I think I might know a thing or two about the social code and core value system of where most of our volunteer military comes from.... It couldn't be more different than the northeast, liberal, Hollywood, university cocoon that spawns such clueless wonders as you, Obama, and John F'ing Kerry. You all think the military is a big social experiment where you can play with the rules and the culture.... Whether it's your pseudo "shock and revulsion" at Tailhook or your faux horror at jump wings pounded into chests or the blame the victims which you all did after an Islamist slaughtered soldiers at Ft. hood. You and your ilk absolutely DISGUST me - so willing to send men off to a war and risk their lives while you quietly plan for our withdrawal and defeat. You are moral cowards. You are quitters. You are losers. You are traitors to your country. You want gays in the military? Fine! Don't think it wont affect unit cohesion? How stupidly naive... Got kids? If you like it so much then put them into harms way!

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

So when will our military men and women share the same quarters and begin to shower together? If it will be required for the straight guys to strip in a front of openly gay (female) men, why not go all the way?
Liberal logic is a contradiction in terms.

Posted by: jmk55 | October 13, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I really hope the White House doesn't waste our money appealing this and ends this 17-year-long farce.

Note to extremist Talibangelists - the UCMJ still has adultery and sodomy as crimes, so your fears of gay showers are totally out of place.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 13, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

(oh, and I served 7 years in the Army, my dad was in the USAF during the Cuban Missile Crisis and my grandfather died in uniform doing his job as DJAG for the USAF as he was walking up the Capitol steps - this whole DADT farce is exactly that)

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 13, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are gonna get their behinds kicked in November becuase most of them, like Obama, never standup for anything. They let the noisy opposition control the debate.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 13, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

qtrfoil85 wrote that if DADT is repealed, then there would be more prosecutions via Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex ... is guilty of sodomy."

Perhaps. However, how come nobody points out that straight military members are subject to this provision as well? Why are we not discharging straight men and women for engaging in sodomy? We all know that straight couples engage in sodomy too, however they get a pass on it because they're heterosexual. (and for the record, I'm using the definition of sodomy as anal or oral sex) So why haven't straight soldiers been dismissed from the military under this article while we have simultaneously seen over 13,000 gay and lesbian soldiers discharged? Just more double standards and evidence that the military discriminates against gay and lesbians. I agree with qtrfoil85 - to really do the job, we must not only repeal DADT, but also modernize Article 125. The US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws a long time ago.

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Great article.

At the time, nobody agreed with integrating the schools either. This has been a long time coming.

I just pray for the first openly gay military men and women.

Posted by: joshlct | October 13, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Would female soldiers rely upon the professionalism and respect of the heterosexual male soldiers just as the heterosexual male soldiers are being expected to rely upon the professionalism and respect of the gay soldiers?

No one requires that a female say or believe that all men are rapists in order to assert a privacy right from all men. Why do we call straight males homophobes for asserting their right to privacy?

The judge rushed the decision out because the political environment will be very different in about two weeks. That's tricky, but not unheard of. What is unusual is that the rights being trampled in the process of those of young men throughout the country. That's too much for me to ignore.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 13, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I believe Gates needs to have his employment terminated. Gates should have had his implementation stuff completed months ago or years ago. No wonder we are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 13, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Capitalist-1: How dare you put liberals in a box and say that they aren't patriotic? Or that they don't support you and the rest of the troops? The truth is this: YOU are the one who is going to have to adjust after DADT is repealed. You're the dinosaur. You are already serving with gay and lesbian comrades and the fact that you show absolutely no respect for them demonstrates weakness, not strength. So I would suggest opening your mind a bit, turning down the macho quotient, and just trying to get along with your fellow soldiers - no matter who they are. You're on the same side, right?

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Its obvious that having an all straight military is not doing any good in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 13, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Grapchick.... You and that silly twit Lady Gaga don't have a CLUE about warfare. About unit cohesion. About American male culture. About team cohesion. About winning and losing. About competition. About what it means to be defeated in battle and the consequences it spawns. Come to think of it, just what do you know about life? How DARE you try to shove your leftist, Code Pink, morality upon the only institution remaining in the country that you and your ilk haven't yet destroyed. You're the same defeatist crew who didn't support the surge campaign..... Wanted to quit like the cowards you are and hand victory to Jihadist butchers who slaughter women and children. You are the same crew that sees that butcher Hassan as the "victim.". You are the same crew who refuse to print Muhammad cartoons out of "sensitivity" yet clap with glee at cartoons of soldiers missing arms and legs. You are the same crew who send one of your own into the witness protection program because she had the audacity to ponder a print Muhammad cartoon day to make it impossible for those Fascists to single any one author out. You cheer on a mosque at Ground Zero because it's their "right" yet you demand that a pastor not burn a Quaran out if sensitivity. Want more? I could go on for days and weeks at your hypocrisy. Your defeatism. Your faux morality. Your arrogant condescension. You and your ilk are traitoress SCUM, not worthy to walk the same ground as hard working, bill paying, war fighting American society. Go out to San Francisco, grab a joint, and talk with your hippy friends about your miserable, failed lives.

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Would any of you want to serve with the likes of a Barnie Frank? Case closed. Gay men are opening themselves up for friendly fire on the battlefield. I served 22 years in the USMC. I cared nothing about ones sexuality less they cared about mine. DADT was initiated by Liberals. One of the few things that I agree with that came from Liberals.

Posted by: Cobra2 | October 13, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Obviously the author has never lived in a 40 man squad bay or taken showers in a community format.
This federal judge either.
This is a disruption in the middle of two wars, how can this possibly be good for these missions?
Our brave, exhausted, overextended troops deserve better.

Posted by: daniel3715 | October 13, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Barney Frank? Imagine guys like that openly flaunting their abhorrent lifestyle openly... Humiliating the uniform they wear... Driving thousands of soldiers and Marines out of e service because they're humiliated and disgusted to wear the same uniform. It's an all volunteer military that stands for a certain core of moral principles... I have a lot of friends who want no part of an openly gay armed force. We are NOT the Dutch! The guys who fight and die on our behalf come primarily from rural, American, rugged culture.... Homosexuality is abhorrent to them. You stupid liberal fools are going to make it morally impossible for them to continue service. America made it's choice and that choice is Barney Frank? I shudder

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It's perfectly clear that Dionne does not care one iota for the security of the country or the viability of the US armed forces.

Dionne doesn't care for the democratic process or that we are a country that lives by laws not by the fiat of a ruling elite. (It's amazing that liberals are continually discovering "rights" that have gone undiscovered for centuries.)

Dionne is clearly more interested in the politics of this ruling and the furthering of the gay agenda than he is in democracy or the nation's security.

Posted by: amazd | October 13, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist-1 wrote: "Graphchick: You and that silly twit Lady Gaga don't have a CLUE about warfare. About unit cohesion. About American male culture. About team cohesion. About winning and losing. About competition. About what it means to be defeated in battle and the consequences it spawns."

What does this have to do with the sexual orientation of your fellow soldiers? I'm not attacking you or what you do. I'm not saying I understand the complexities of being in battle. I just want you to admit you're homophobic.

"How DARE you try to shove your leftist, Code Pink, morality upon the only institution remaining in the country that you and your ilk haven't yet destroyed. You're the same defeatist crew who didn't support the surge campaign....."

There you go again with labels. Actually, I did/do support the surge in Afghanistan. I was ambivalent about the surge in Iraq.

"Wanted to quit like the cowards you are and hand victory to Jihadist butchers who slaughter women and children. You are the same crew that sees that butcher Hassan as the "victim.". You are the same crew who refuse to print Muhammad cartoons out of "sensitivity" yet clap with glee at cartoons of soldiers missing arms and legs."

No!! I deplore the people who are using the guise of religion to murder innocents. I believe in freedom of the press, yet I would never "clap with glee" at a picture of *anyone* missing arms and legs. Don't paint me into a box. Perhaps I've done the same to you, but all I get from your posts is that you only want to serve with big, macho straight men. Am I wrong? What are you afraid of? Surely there's more to combat readiness than sexuality. How about physical endurance, leadership skills, marksmanship, navigation ability, foreign language skills, encryption/decryption/coding specialist, etc etc etc.

"You cheer on a mosque at Ground Zero because it's their "right" yet you demand that a pastor not burn a Quaran out if sensitivity."

I believe in freedom of religion. "Allowing" a mosque to be built near the site of Ground Zero is perhaps the most noble exercise of freedom of religion we can undertake. There's a difference between Islam and terrorism. And while I deplore anyone burning the Koran (or the Bible, or any other sacred text), he/she has the right to do it.

"You and your ilk are traitoress SCUM, not worthy to walk the same ground as hard working, bill paying, war fighting American society."

Wow. Who do you think I am? I work hard (in fact, for 8 years I worked for a federal agency that supported YOU and the military and kept you safe). I pay bills. I pay for you to be out there fighting. And you fight for ALL of us - remember that.

You sound so angry. We're not all that different really.

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

You can read my complete article here:

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

Posted by: denniscopson | October 13, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Yes! I AM angry.... I think furious would be a better word. By "you" I don't necessarily mean you personally... But I very much mean the Leftist ideological spectrum and all of the damage it has done. Whether it's letting people get away with not paying their mortgage.... Or bailing out failed businesses... Or celebrating a withdrawal from Iraq that would have handed jihadists a tremendous victory... Or ramming a ham hocked healthcare bill through congress... And now on the social front the assault continues - gays openly serving and flaunting their sexuality in the US armed forces. I'm not a religious guy, but the vast majority of soldiers and Marines are. I respect their value spectrum and deep faith. This overturn will trample their values and make it difficult to continue service. The military has ONE mission....only ONE...to win. Anything that impedes that is flaunting our fate... Time will tell how this all plays out... But at some point the nation will need those rural, southern, hick warriors to go out and win... With everything at stake. And I fear that they will just say, "no thanks, I want nothing to do with this military anymore.". Who's going to fill their shoes? Kids from Massachusetts and California? Call me a huge skeptic

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist-1: The only soldiers who openly flaunt their sexuality are the straights.

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"They seem to take great delight in eroding what is strong, what is sublime, what is traditional, what is tried-and-true."

Actually, it's conservatives who do this with respect to gay rights.

Conservatives erode the strength and sublimity of marriage by making it primarily about dangly bits and breeding, rather than about love and commitment.

Conservatives erode traditional military values of honesty (by demanding that gay soldiers lie), and of commitment to and respect for one's fellow soldiers, (by telling straight soldiers that gay soldiers aren't as good as them).

Conservatives erode the sublime American values of equal rights for all, and of human rights which may not be alienated by any majority vote or any government.

Conservatives deny the tried-and-true evidence that gay soldiers serving openly have done well in, and helped, the armies of almost every other civilized nation in the world.

Conservatives value their anti-gay bigotry and hatred over love, over family, over American liberties, over service to their country, and over our own common humanity. And they flaunt that abhorrent bigot lifestyle openly and freely, shoving it in our faces and demanding that we accord it the same respect as we do real American principles.

Frankly, I'd rather serve with another woman eyeing me in the showers than with one of you waving your nasty bigotry in my face. I went to a women's college - I've shared showers, hotel rooms, dorm rooms, dining halls, gyms, you name it, with open and recognized lesbians and bisexual women, and you know, I never once had a problem. But bigots make me ill.

Posted by: Catken1 | October 13, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Also, a long time ago we were worried that those "southern, hick warriors" wouldn't like serving next to black soldiers. But the military instituted a change - by fiat - and over time the culture adjusted. The same thing will happen here. I have confidence that Secretary Gates will oversee things with foresight - I think he'll institute training to help soldiers adjust, and things will go on just fine. True, some might opt out, but I think the fallout will be minimal.

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"If it is true that homosexual react to men like ordinary men react to women, there will be conflict in showers and the close quarters of military life if ever the new policy goes into effect."

Maybe we ought to expect better behavior of heterosexual men, then.
If men, gay or straight, can't control their own sexual behavior, they don't belong in the military.

Posted by: Catken1 | October 13, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

That's right....only the straights flaunt it... Imagine the scene where a guy comes into the barracks and high fives his buddies because he had anal sex with some hermaphrodite in a shower stall down at the YMCA. It ain't gonna work! Typical professorial "elitist" theory gone horribly wrong. The stupid fools implementing this don't know the first thing about American male culture....

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

When people hear don't ask, don't tell. They think of politics. Ever had a don't ask, don't tell activist in a fire fight. Your mouth is dry because you don't know where is the enemy is, but now you have to calm down the don't ask, don't tell activist because their falling apart. They start to yell this is not what I signed up for. Their yelling and screaming gives the enemy more inspiration to attack because they think we're falling apart. Sure, the don't ask, don't tell activist goes through basic training like the rest of us and does their job, but that's where it ends. For those who have had a don't ask, don't tell activist with them knows how many times they have had to go back and leave this person because of the mix emotions that these people bring. The safety of the unit is the most important thing and I don't think anyone who goes out in the field with a don't ask, don't tell activist gives a hoot what some judge thinks is right.

Posted by: houstonian | October 13, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of this liberal activist judge.... She also said that DADT violated 5th Amendment? If that's true, then the ENTIRE military judicial system is invalidated and unconstitutional. If Im in the military and object to an order then I just claim my 5th Amendment rights!! If that is the ground for overturn, then it will destroy the American military.... and all Liberals will live happily ever after.

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Capitalist, I'm growing fond of you and actually enjoying our back and forth. So let me ask you this: how do you think things will be different if gays are allowed to serve openly? What exactly do you mean when you say they don't fit into the "male culture" of the military? And what about lesbian military members? I know 2 Navy members who are lesbian, and I can tell you that they are 2 of the finest human beings and most dedicated sailors I've met. One has served in Afghanistan and also in Haiti on the Comfort. The other also served on the Comfort doing a medical assistance tour in Central America. Why are these individuals not fit for duty?

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist-1, um, have you ever taken ConLaw? Actually, no need to answer that.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I hear a lot of Republicans talk a lot about how a social agenda isn't part of their new platform. Then I see thousands of Republicans screaming at gays and I know they're lying just like they always do.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist-1, you wrote "...then it will destroy the American military..."

Time will tell, and you've marked your words.

Remember, years ago when gay marriage became valid in several states, your ilk said over and over (and I quote) "communities will be destroyed." So, can you name one community that has been destroyed since gay marriage became valid in Iowa, Mass, Ca, etc.? Just ONE town? You guys promised it would happen, so time to show your proof...

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist-1, you wrote "...then it will destroy the American military..."

Time will tell, and you've marked your words.

Remember, years ago when gay marriage became valid in several states, your ilk said over and over (and I quote) "communities will be destroyed." So, can you name one community that has been destroyed since gay marriage became valid in Iowa, Mass, Ca, etc.? Just ONE town? You guys promised it would happen, so time to show your proof...

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

You're all missing the point.

The military are composed of civilians who are trained to be killing machines. You don't put the lamb in with the lions. If you do, you can spout all your social engineering crap all day long but you're responsible for the fallout when the lion eats the lamb.

Posted by: SamFreedom | October 13, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

SamFreedom, you're missing the point. Gays are already in the military - by the tens of thousands.

By the way, it is the str8 members who state over and over that they are "really scared" of serving with openly gay people (unlike every NATO military except Hungary). So, who is the lamb?

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"You're all missing the point.

The military are composed of civilians who are trained to be killing machines. You don't put the lamb in with the lions. If you do, you can spout all your social engineering crap all day long but you're responsible for the fallout when the lion eats the lamb.

Posted by: SamFreedom | October 13, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse "

So says the 'man' who just pissed himself in terror because gays can now openly serve.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 13, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The only thing good about an E.J. Dionne Jr. article to me, is that I get to call it a worthless piece of trash.


E.J., your liberalism is dying. America has seen the face of liberalism and it is being rejected wholesale.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | October 13, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Actually FormerDemocrat, liberalism is alive and well, hence why the radical right and its discriminatory ways face loss after loss after loss. I'm just sayin'

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

For all of you who are writing to express disquiet about the decision, consider this.

Of all the first world military organisations that allow same sex preferred people to serve openly, there is no fundamental issues arising from that service. Save perhaps for individuals who have issues with serving with gays.

When Australia rescinded the ban in the early 90s the then coalition opposition - conservatives - were up in arms claiming there would be a wholesale spike in the number of people leaving the Defence force because they didn't want to serve with gays.

The year after the ban was lifted they checked the exit surveys of the reasons why those members who'd left the Defence force did so.

For the reason 'because gays can serve openly' there were a total of two members who claimed that was the primary reason for their leaving.

Bigotry has no place in the armed forces. It is antithetical to discipline, good order, and unit cohesion.

It is not gays who shouldn't serve. But people who can't serve with gays.

Posted by: Ozreader | October 13, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Well stated Ozreader, it clearly isnt gays who have the "problem" here.

If our military is scared of gay people, we have much larger issues.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Does tha author have a crush on Barack Obama, as rumoured around DC? Should Mr Dionne have excercised journalistic integrity and not weighed in on this subject given his reputed sexual orientation in DC? That said, The Dept. of Justice should appeal the injunction because actions by the legislative and executive branched are presumed to be constitutional.

As for me, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military. Perhaps devotees of beastality should also be allowed to serve and exercise personal freedoms with consenting beasts? What about the Mormons; should they be allowed multiplw wives? I say why not, if all consent. Should childern be taught the potential benefits of homosexual relationships if president Obama's "middle class tax relief" programme is passed as advocated by Obama?Under Obama's plan homosexual couples living together and making less than $200,000 each would pay far less in federal income taxes compared to a hetrosexual couple.

It is a tennet of economic theory that if you tax an activity you generate less of that activity ( with the exception of adictive substances such a cigarrets). Conversley, if you tax that activity at a lesser rate than other activity you encourage the lesser taxed activity.

In my opinion, gays in the military should not be a huge national issue. Reinstitution of the marriage penalty in federal income taxation should be a much bigger issue. Perhaps Dionne should address that issue.

Posted by: KEVIN25 | October 13, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

To "theduck6"

I served in the military, dad and the entire equal rights of gay Americans to serve was broken.

Were you ever a slave. That worked well, unless you were the slave.

It's about-we are all equal, or we are not. KISS

Posted by: COWENS99 | October 13, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Graphchick..... I have no doubt that gay and lesbian service members honorably serve and are competent. What's important isn't them or their feelings.... What is important is good order and discipline and morale... Without those things then winning is not possible. This is more of an issue of the cultural norms that the rank and file come from.... It goes far deeper than overcoming race.... This goes to the moral fabric of the entire value system... Racism is an attitude....homosexuality is deemed as immoral.... Not saying I agree with that view... But hundreds of thousands of service members sure do.

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

But- if we allow African Americans to openly serve in the US Armed Forces alongside good white people, that will DESTROY MORALE and degrade the efficacy of our fighting forces. Why, it will probably mean the end of the U.S. as a world power!

Oh wait, wrong decade of ConservaTalk (tm). Sorry.

But- but- if we allow WOMEN to openly serve in the US Armed Forces alongside males, that will DESTROY MORALE and degrade the efficacy of our fighting forces. Why, it will probably mean the end of the U.S. as a world power!!

Oh wait, wrong decade of ConservaTalk (tm). Sorry.

But- but- if we allow GAY PEOPLE to openly serve in the US Armed Forces alongside heterosexual people, that will DESTROY MORALE and degrade the efficacy of our fighting forces. Why, it will probably mean the end of the U.S. as a world power!

What's next up?

But- but- if we allow BLONDE people to serve alongside DARK-HAIRED people that will blah blah blah...

Will conservatives ever get tired of being laughably on the wrong side of history? You'd think the humiliation would get to them after awhile.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 13, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Ozreader..... To use European armispes as an example of successful homosexual integration is specious at best. Sure it was successful.... Except they cant fight worth a crap and bring little value to the modern battlefield. Why don't you ask the Albanians who were slaughtered as the Dutch watched in Bosnia? Why don't you ask our enemies who only fear e Americans. The European militaries are a JOKE!

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist-1, are you saying the Israeli military is "crap?" The British? The Canadian?

Doesnt change the fact that only the US military and Hungarian military (NATO) are scared of gay people.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

B202, next to be banned are left handers. They are rather scary too.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 13, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The ruling was right from a moral standpoint; not sure if from a legal standpoint.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | October 13, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

The constitution is being treated like a religious document. I have no idea whether DADT is good or bad, but I do think the decision should not be made by someone who never served in the army and who was not even elected.

Posted by: rjpal | October 13, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

The constitution is being treated like a religious document. I have no idea whether DADT is good or bad, but I do think the decision should not be made by someone who never served in the army and who was not even elected.

Posted by: rjpal | October 13, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

This is not a "civil rights" issue. The Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that no American citizen has a "right" to serve in the military. Additionally, at the time that "DADT" was implemented by the Clinton Administration more than 400 active-duty and retired senior officers, including General Colin Powell, opined that allowing openly-homosexual personnel to serve in the military would be "prejudicial to good order and discipline" and would adversely affect combat readiness. And no, a single federal judge with no military background is not qualified to make such a decision.

Posted by: dkaag | October 13, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

THE US CONSTITUTION ART4 SEC2(1)THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, They are US CITIZENS OR NOT ? ,THERE ARE WANTING TO PROTECT OLD GLORY , 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C),

9th AMENDMENT: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE (ie ALL US CITIZENS)

You know, had a referendum on banning interracial marriages been put on the ballot down
South, up until about 20 years ago, it would have passed. Had civil rights been subject to a vote in those states, it would have also been voted down before about 1980.

matters of civil rights should never be put for a vote. If they were, as Prop 8 was, we might still have Jim Crow laws in the South, seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms, poll taxes, and a ban on inter-racial marriage, WOMEN RIGHT TO VOTE AND EQUAL PAY WAGES, "WOMEN EMANCIPATION ACT"

Posted by: shaiarra | October 13, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

What a shock that Dionne took the liberal side on this position. You never know what you're gonna get from this guy.

Posted by: charlesbakerharris | October 13, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Gee, here I thought it was a "left" decision.

Let's eliminate the executive and legislative branches. And the lower courts. Just go and ask the supreme court what they think.

Unfortunately, all policy decisions now and in the future will become judicial issues.

Posted by: eeterrific | October 13, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

"Ozreader..... To use European armispes as an example of successful homosexual integration is specious at best. Sure it was successful.... Except they cant fight worth a crap and bring little value to the modern battlefield...

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 13, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse "

That was Australia Capitalist-1, not Austria. How about a bit less capitalism and a bit more geography.

I challenge you to tell a member of the Australian Defence Force they're not warrior enough for you...

Posted by: Ozreader | October 13, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

HE (OBAMA) SHOULD EX OFFICIO=(BY TH THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE) AS COMMANDER AND CHIEF DO LIKE HIS COUSIN DID (GWB) AND LEGISLATE THE UCMJ BY EXECUTIVE ORDERS BEFORE THE COURTS AND DECENT HUMANE CIVILITY DO IT, LOOK AROUND YOU ( WASH DC), THIS US CORPORATION (TITLE 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C) WAS BUILT ON THE PRINCIPLES OF BOTH BISEXUAL GREECE AND ROMAN U.C.C. PRINCIPLES, ROME IS STILL HERE

Article 1 Section "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

XTIANS ARE delusional, Military Fact The UCMJ (ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (JAG), IS NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE OK, JAGS CANNOT PRESIDE OVER THE CONSTITUTION), WHILE IN THE MILITARY ITS JAG COURT BUT ONCE OUT THE MILITARY THE CASE IS UP FOR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BY A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY TEST THE CASE, FOR THE UCMJ Gets its power from the US Constitution which also Govern the Commander and Chief all USC LAW ARE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND UCC ( UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE )REVIEW 28USC3002 (15) (A)(B)(C) (US CORPORATION) THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, NOT JAGS

Posted by: shaiarra | October 13, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON'T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTU TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN'T BE COPY RIGHTED

GOOGLE: NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

So if these churches are using a "literal" interpretation of the bible are they also OK with slavery?
Exodus 21:7-11
Ephesians 6:5
Exodus 21:20-2
Luke 12:47-48

FYI A LOT SAME SEXERS AND BISEXUALS BOTH HAVE BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN OK (AKIN/ RICKY MARTIN/ CHENEYS DAUGHTER exp) THEIR ARE MANY MORE ,INDIA HINDI ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LEAST ONE CHILD THEN LIVE THEIR LIFE

Posted by: shaiarra | October 13, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

OMG NNNOOOOO SAY IT IT NOT SO

They say you can't choose your family, and the latest discovery from Ancestry.com goes some way to proving that, as Fox News Channel reported Wednesday.

Researchers say President Obama is related to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, one of his most vocal critics, as well as to frequent political opponent Sarah Palin.

Obama and Palin are 10th cousins, connected through their common ancestor John Smith. Obama and Limbaugh are 10th cousins, once removed, through common ancestor Richard Terrell.

And a leadership gene clearly runs through Samuel Hinckley's family, because Obama, Palin, and former president George W. Bush are all related through common ancestor Hinckley, who was among the first wave of settlers in America in the 1600s. Obama and Bush are 11th cousins; Palin and Bush are 11th cousins as well.

Obama famously joked about his distant relation to former vice president Dick Cheney back in 2007, after it was revealed that the presidential candidate and the former vice president were 8th cousins. Obama said he was "okay" with the family connection, but he didn't "want to be invited to the family hunting party."

Whether Obama, Palin, and Limbaugh and Bush will be gathering for a family barbecue anytime soon remains to be seen.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_related_to_rival_sarah_palin_gUjBf71p8awXgJfBPUSEXK#ixzz12ISOf6Hg

Posted by: shaiarra | October 13, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I am in the military, and I believe in traditional American values. Homosexuality is immoral. If a liberal judge legislates immorality from the bench and forces me and my fellow warriors to sanction an immoral lifestyle, it will not stand. What's the next ploy in to weaken our military? One gets the impression our readiness means nothing to this present leadership.

Posted by: Publius76 | October 13, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

>>>What's funny about this is that most people who have an opinion about it aren't in the military and have no intention of ever serving in the military.

ummm, the military's not some sort of private club -- it's paid for with my tax dollars as well and should not discriminate in evil and hateful ways.

Posted by: jeffcoud2 | October 13, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Capitalist: Yes, there are soldiers who think homosexuality is immoral. But there are also quite a few who think the opposite, and who support overturning DADT. You do realize that don't ask, don't tell WILL be repealed, right? So the question is, how will you handle this change? Are you one of the ones who is going to leave the military? Or will you stay? And if so, how will you relate to those who are openly gay/lesbian? Will you treat them differently? If you leave, or if another otherwise qualified but homophobic soldier leaves, how does it help anybody "win" as you say?

On another note, you mention that it shouldn't be about the feelings of the gay and lesbian soldiers, which is sort of ironic b/c actually Secretary Gates and the brass are spending a lot of time worrying mostly about how you and the straight soldiers feel about all this. I think that's a good idea actually. Hopefully, it will ultimately result in the best way to integrate gays and lesbians openly in the military.

Posted by: graphchick1 | October 13, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked, the British SAS were regarded as the world's best special forces unit or, at worst, in the top three. Also, I seem to recall the Germans being pretty swift at warfare - and isn't their mountain and winter warfare school at Mittenwald rated as one of the toughest courses of any military in the world?


I seem to recall reading about plenty of Biblical justifications being used to keep the status quo back when people were demonstrating for civil rights. Since moral codes are often derived from religion, this would imply those who argued against civil rights viewed granting such rights an immoral act. But even if such an implication is way off base, there is no case for honoring Leviticus 18:22 whilst ignoring all other Old Testament proscriptions and punishments. I don't seem to recall those same soldiers objecting en masse to working on the Sabbath, or eating pork, or touching the skin of a dead pig (a.k.a. a football). I don't hear them clamoring for the right to kill their rebellious children or people found guilty of adultery, or those who admit to being Wiccans (meaning, of course, they practice witchcraft).

If they object to those who commit acts they believe to be immoral, why don't I read about lots of cases of suspected adultery amongst the heterosexuals when the guys go on R&R and one of the (married) men is seen to be cavorting with a female not his wife? Why does homosexuality get special treatment? Is it because those big, strong, straight men quiver in fear at the thought of being looked at by homosexuals in the same way those heterosexuals routinely look at women?

In regards to the morality of actions, why don't those straight men treat accusations of rape more seriously? According to a 2008 CNN article, military doctors at a Los Angeles Veterans Affairs hospital told a Congressional Representative that 29% of women seen at that hospital reported being raped - not just sexually assaulted, but raped - by a fellow service member. I don't seem to recall reading about those manly men clamoring for their ranks to be scoured clean of heterosexual rapists.

The military's combat readiness survived racial and gender integration, it will survive sexual integration. Members objecting can do what they've always been allowed to do - vote with their feet. Those doing so should be thanked for their service, and told not to let the door knob hit them on their a## on their way out (they might think some gay is hitting on them and freak).

Posted by: SeaTigr | October 13, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I was told that if I voted for McCain homosexuals and socialist would take over America and it looks like they were right. What an appalling ruling. Fighting two war and open homosexuals is not what the military needs - ever!

Posted by: gun313 | October 13, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

....when the government tramples upon the constitutional rights of an entire class of citizens, there is nothing further to "study" nor are there any "preparations" to be made. Get your god damned boots off my head and let me die for my country just like you!

Posted by: wp121606 | October 13, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

SamFreedom wrote: "The military are composed of civilians who are trained to be killing machines. You don't put the lamb in with the lions. If you do, you can spout all your social engineering crap all day long but you're responsible for the fallout when the lion eats the lamb."

There is a certain irony to suggesting that someone should not join the military because ... well, f'goshsakes, they might get hurt. I assure you that most people in the military are well aware of the risks involved, and most gay people in the military are aware of the risks involved in being gay in the military. Fine, they're all adults, and I believe capable of determining for themselves if the benefits to be gained and the cause involved are worth the risk.

It's not as if gays outside the military are never at risk. As far as I know, neither Matthew Shepherd nor his killers had any connection to the military. The military recruitment process screens out anyone with a known history, or demonstrable propensity for violence. As recent events at Ft. Hood showed, their system is not perfect, but it's as good as any, and better than most. I strongly suspect that anyone, gay or straight, is safer on a military base than on the streets of most major American cities.

Posted by: jbowler | October 14, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

"I am in the military, and I believe in traditional American values. Homosexuality is immoral. If a liberal judge legislates immorality from the bench and forces me and my fellow warriors to sanction an immoral lifestyle, it will not stand. What's the next ploy in to weaken our military? One gets the impression our readiness means nothing to this present leadership."

There are a certain number of people in the military who believe in "traditional American values" such as no fornication "sex outside marriage" that doesn't seem to prevent a lot of the rest of them from practicing it regularly.

Q. If (when) DADT is repealed, do you intend to leave the military?

Posted by: jbowler | October 14, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Well, it has now been almost 48 hours since DADT has been under permanent injunction.

The military has not yet imploded (as predicted by many above), the sky has not fallen, we can all still buy sliced bread.

In fact, a leading commander has said "nothing has changed" despite DADT being permanently enjoined.

Posted by: DigDug1 | October 14, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

It is long overdue the repeal of DADT. If our constitution is to protect the rights of all Americans this law and others like it that deny equality have no place in our government.

We need advocates like LT.Choi to protect our rights and to form a council to guide the government on equality and protections against discriminations.

http://ourscenetv.com/posts/465/breaking-the-chains-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell

Posted by: chrisatlier | October 14, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company