Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:26 PM ET, 11/23/2010

Wanted: GOP votes for repeal of don't ask don't tell

By Jonathan Capehart

All the pieces are falling into place for the repeal of the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. A comprehensive study on don't ask don't tell will be released one day early (Nov. 30). This gives senators time to read it. Hearings will be held on the report on Dec. 2. This gives senators time to debate it. And then there will be a vote. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is still threatening a filibuster. That's why those who are passionate about getting rid of don't ask don't tell should use the Thanksgiving holiday to call key Republican senators in their home districts to urge them to do the right thing on what will be a historic vote.

Some Republicans have already given indications that they will. When asked about don't ask don't tell during a television interview last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) said she "would not oppose the defense authorization bill" if it included the repeal. Greg Sargent reported last week that in a letter to constituents on this issue, Sen. John Ensign (Nev.) wrote, "It is my firm belief that Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to fight and risk their lives in defense of this great nation." A spokesperson for Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) told me via e-mail today that she "is hopeful Majority Leader Reid will bring the Defense Authorization bill to the floor in the lame duck--including repeal of DADT, and allow for a full and open debate, including some Republican amendments unlike his attempt in September."

Expressions of support are great. But it's what they do at the time of the vote that matters. And on this controversial issue, nothing can be taken for granted.

Remember, the vote will be held in the lame-duck session. So there are 58 Democratic votes. Assuming they vote in lock-step (and you know what your mom says about assuming), to overcome McCain's shameful filibuster, at least two Republicans must vote for cloture. If you're wondering who needs encouragement in addition to the three already mentioned, I'd suggest calling the Senate and district offices of Scott Brown (Mass.), George LeMieux (Fla.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio).

While you're at it, give a nudge to Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). He's made noises about stripping the repeal from the defense authorization bill. That must not happen. And give a buck-up call to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to ensure that the process is as open and fair as the Republicans desire.

Dr. Martin Luther King said in many speeches, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The vote on the repeal of don't ask don't tell is one of those rare times when our leaders with one vote could bend that moral arc to make history and achieve justice all at once. The Senate cannot let this momentous opportunity slip by.

By Jonathan Capehart  | November 23, 2010; 2:26 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Palin Power triumph?
Next: The enduring appeal of trying terrorists before military commissions

Comments

How about you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, Mr. Capehart?

I'll support the repeal of DADT if you support the rights of the disabled innocents to unreasonable physical searches at our nation's airports.

Until you are willing to support civil rights for ALL Americans, your plea for the repeal of DADT reeks of hypocrisy.

Posted by: MsJS | November 23, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Spare us, Jonathan. You're only doing what has become your full-time job: Spewing Obama talking points. The Obama game, as we all know, is to give enough bare appearances to try to pretend that he did everything he could but couldn't pass DADT repeal.

I wonder, when you say "those who are passionate about getting rid of don't ask don't tell should use the Thanksgiving holiday to call key Republican senators," are you including Barack Obama among those who are passionate and should make calls? As of today, everything suggests that Obama is the opposite of passionate about repeal and has refused to call any Republican senators. Oh, but we wouldn't hear that from you, you disgusting, Obamabot sell-out.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 23, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

MsJS thinks a market in swapping grievances is an effective way to achieve social justice ("I'll support the repeal of DADT if you support the rights of the disabled innocents to unreasonable physical searches at our nation's airports.")I don't think that Capehart endorses unreasonable searches at airports (who does?)but we can all agree that the TSA has to figure out a better way to handle challenging problems in making sure air travel is as safe as possible. The body searches are a necessary evil, especially if the traveler declines a body scan.

I hope we can also agree that any American willing to serve our country in the military should serve and not be expected to camouflage who and what they are. Talk about intrusive investigations!

Posted by: gratianus | November 23, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, MsJS, the new security protocols garner supermajority support in polls, just like the repeal of DADT does. Spend two decades building support for your position like the gay community has for DADT repeal.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 23, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Already happening, uh_huhh. Just watch.

BTW the public supported racial discrimination, too.

Quite frankly, I fully support the immediate repeal of DADT. Mr. Capehart, on the other hand, is quite willing to see my civil rights violated so he can be lulled into a false sense of security.

Posted by: MsJS | November 23, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Seems like this article assumes the House has passed or will pass a repeal of DADT. Has or will it?

Posted by: Garak | November 23, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

uh_huhh,

Majorities in Georgia and Texas want abortion banned and prayer in school returned. A majority in New York City wants guns outlawed. Any of these things going to happen? No. They aren't majority-rule things.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 23, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Ms JS, this really isn't in the same category. I'm surprised you haven't realized that you're aiding and abetting the terrorists every time you protest.

Does anyone know what amendments the Republicans have in mind? I agree that there should be open debate on the floor, but just how might the Repubs derail the entire bill as a giveaway to their fundies?

Posted by: Anglo_Rider | November 23, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't imagine Mr. Capehart has ever served. And, if he did, he obviously didn't learn very much. Point blank: There is no one angrier at the concept of comparing homosexual rights to integration of the armed forces than the black soldiers, sailors airmen and Marines. If you want to start a lot of trouble, just try to depend on black servicemen to set the example.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or stupid. Repeal DADT and there will be blood. A lot of it.

Posted by: rjack3054 | November 23, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

They lynched lots of coons back in the '40s and '50s, yet African Americans were not discouraged and serve in the Armed Forces still. Gays are very aware that many blacks have been saying "I got mine" for a long time, but generally the coalition stands.

Posted by: Anglo_Rider | November 23, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Anglo_Rider, how utterly delightful of you to say that.

The conventional wisdom used to be that allowing gays to serve in the military or in top secret posts would aid and abet our enemy because gays were inherently weaker and more likely to divulge sensitive information if captured or threatened with blackmail. So much for that theory.

Now it's time to start dismantling the 'wisdom' that says a law abiding disabled citizen unable to walk through a scanner is to be treated as a criminal.

How exactly does the opinion of a person who finds being groped in the name of security a violation of Constitutional protections pose a threat? TSA has yet to discover a terrorist via the manual search, and there's no way to prove it's been an effective deterrant.

As for DADT, the GOP has a specific agenda during the lame duck session. That agenda revolves largely around showing the Democrats the GOP will set the legislative schedule in the next Congress. Very little in the way of substantive legislation will pass.

Mr. Capehart is right in that saying one wants an open debate on DADT is a far cry from actually voting to repeal it. As much as I'd like to see it happen, lame duck sessions rarely produce historic legislation.

Posted by: MsJS | November 23, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

If you let gays/lesbians in now, next they'll want transgenders in.

Posted by: Jmacaco4 | November 23, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Require McCain to actually filibuster.

Posted by: knjincvc | November 23, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

WHEN XTIAN THOUGHT THE REPORT WOULD BE IN THEIR FAVOR THEY THE XTIANS WERE FOR IT, NOW THAT IS IS KNOWN NOT TO FAVOR THE XTIAN etc BIASED VIEWS, NOW THEY OPPOSE IT, HYPOCRITICAL FROM THAT $$$ IMF IRS 501 (C)(3) LLC/S-CORPORATION THAT THE BLIND SHEEP GIVE THE "EVIL DOLLAR" TOO.

ALL US CITIZENS HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHT IS SERVE IN THE MILITARY " USA OATH OF ALLEGIANCE," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008))

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

* allegiance to the United States Constitution,
* renunciation of allegiance to any foreign country to which the immigrant has had previous allegiances to
* defense of the Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic"

* promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law (either combat or non-combat)

* promise to perform civilian duties of "national importance" when required by law

Posted by: shaiarra | November 23, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the "heads up"! I'll be calling my Senators to insist they do NOT vote to repeal DADT.I'll make every effort to e-mail some RINO's also to let them know DADT is working just fine,except for a few militant malcontents who want to make a public announcement about their sex life.

Posted by: bowspray | November 23, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

rjack3054: Point blank: There is no one angrier at the concept of comparing homosexual rights to integration of the armed forces than the black soldiers, sailors airmen and Marines. If you want to start a lot of trouble, just try to depend on black servicemen to set the example.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or stupid. Repeal DADT and there will be blood. A lot of it.
_____________________

rjack, you have proved how similar gay rights and black civil rights are. Bigots opposed to black civil rights lynched black men, just as you propose anti-gay bigot do to gay service members. Thanks for proving that the bigotries are so similar.

BTW, we have a little thing called civilian control of the military. Those of us who are civilians are the boss. Soldiers will obey the orders we give them or be punished for insubordination. Is that clear?

Now, go sit in your black church stewing in homophobic bigotry. But guess what? It won't make you any more of a man in the eyes of white racists.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 23, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

bowspray: ...DADT is working just fine,except for a few militant malcontents who want to make a public announcement about their sex life.
____________________

Wow, what breathtaking ignorance. You don't even understand what DADT is.

Please explain how sending a private email message to your spouse is "mak[ing] a public announcement about [your] sex life." DADT bans that.

Please explain how having the military notify your spouse when you are killed in action is "mak[ing] a public announcement about [your] sex life." DADT bans that.

Let's require all straight soldiers to suppress any evidence of their relationships, bar them from marriage, forbid them to communicate with any spouse, and force them to be quiet about their sex lives. Any straight soldier who would object to that is just a malcontent, right? Bigot.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 23, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

WANTED. Mr. Capehart to leave the US Military, the people who give up rights to protect ours, who fight our wars alone and to quit pushing disasterous morale killing political correctness which won't do one thing to increase the safety of this nation, onto soldiers who want no part of this type of behavior.

Posted by: wjc1va | November 23, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE
CHECK THIS OUT

rjack3054 says, "There is no one angrier at the concept of comparing homosexual rights to integration of the armed forces than the black soldiers, sailors airmen and Marines."

Indeed, liberal Black leaders are telling their rank and file constituents that the color of their skin now equates to an abomination before the Sight of God.

I thought we fought that fight, and good sense won out. That skin color has nothing at all to do with the content of character.

Yet, liberal black leaders seem to be taking a giant step backwards, and actually arguing that the color of one's skin is really in the same category as this homosexual abomination.

This makes skin color, for black Americans, a prison cell of psychological torture.

I can see why black Americans are not very comfortable with this.

When U.S. Marines of African descent confront a homosexual in the ranks, isn’t their disgust going to go much deeper than most? And what will be the result of that?

This is a very interesting dynamic. But more than that. It appears to be a very destructive dynamic.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 23, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

NORTH KOREA AND MAYBE NORTH VIETNAM ARE ON THE MOVE............................

huuummmm 3 wars, and yet DADT IS STILL THERE??????

SEND THE XTIANS INSTEAD NOW

JUST LIKE A LOT OF COWARDS, XTIAN WANT TO DICTATE WHO SHOULD BE IN THE MILITARY, BUT COME WAR TIMES THEY LOOK FOR "FAITH BASED" WEAK REASONS NOT TO BE IN OK. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF KILLING IN THE BIBLE RIGHT!!


OR RE-START THE DRAFT AND BAR ANY AND ALL FAITH BASED RELIGIOUS COWARDLY EXCUSES NOT TO FIGHT FOR THE US.CORPORATION, (TITLE 28USC3001(15)(A)(B)(C) SOONER THAN LATER THE U.S.A. WILL NEED THEM, CATCH BACK IS A M$#$ F&%7(.) FYI MALAKIA=COWARDS NOT SAME SEX OK

Canada and Brits (THE UNITED KINGDOM ), ISRAEL , SWEDEN AND LATIN Countries etc also have had Gays in the military for almost two decades and both of those countries have proven far more effective in Afghanistan than the US military (something about understanding other cultures), MAYBE US SAME SEXERS SHOULD GO AND BUILD UP OTHER NATIONS MILITARIES AND TECHNOLOGIES INSTEAD

Twenty-nine nations, including Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden, allow openly gay troops, according to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group and plaintiff in the lawsuit before Phillips.

GOOGLE" LIST OF COUNTRIES/ NATION THAT HAS HOMOSEXUAL/ BISEXUAL, [or] the US Military can Traffic (US CITIZENS) Same Sex Enlistees to Other ALLI Military Forces Instead as a TREATIES Agreement, TOO BUILD UP THEIR FORCES INSTEAD ,seeing That The Great Alexander Had World Conquering Success with Same Sex Armies , as well as The Powerful Roman Civilization that The US Benefits From To this Day

Posted by: shaiarra | November 23, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

The ONLY senator you need to call is Harry Reid to make sure he keeps his end of the deal this time--to allow for a full and open debate on DAA, including some Republican amendments offered from the floor. It was Reid who added the Dream Act and at the last minute set rules for no real debate that resulted in the Republicans not voting for cloture.

So if we can keep Reid from doing the double cross (yet again), DADT will be voted on and most likely pass with more than 60 votes.
Reid's office number is 202-224-3542.
Nevadans can call toll free: 1-866-736-7343. Tell Harry Reid that you want a full and open debate on DAA that permits amendments from both sides of the aisle.

Really Jonathan, you know better (or you should).

Posted by: Truthseeker_Too | November 23, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Gallup reports that less than a third of the population wants repeal of DADT. The attempted homosexualization of the best military on Earth is part and parcel of the Obamanation. It is a contemptable parting shot by the radical, homosexual lobby and the Obamacrats who want to outrage America one more time before they fade into oblivion.

I hope the Republicans and maybe a few Democrats can hold the line before this full frontal assault on American values and power.

The best way to ruin our military forces is to turn them into homosexual enclaves. That's what this repeal will do.

Next we'll have military, "gay pride" parades down mainstreet, USA.

It will be a grotesque mockery of what once was.

DADT must stand.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

To all the old fogeys posting here (hey, I'm one too), the time has long past for the repeal of DADT. The younger generation serving in the military (and I'm the proud aunt of a young Marine Corps Officer) regard serving with gay and lesbian collagues as a complete non-issue. It's competency they care about, not sexual orientation.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | November 24, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

You know I use to see this as justice and a matter of heart. Now it seems to me that you are stupid if you believe it is biologically natural for a man to fornicate with another man. It is like a man fornicating with a horse or something different from his species. The man goes with the woman...it's not religion it's science. Personally I think this whole planet is whack. One person is only suppose to partner with one other person for their lifetime--that partner being someone of the opposite sex. This whole dating and girlfriends and boyfriends thing has got to go. The problem I think is that folks believe in 'death' and don't get that there is a life beyond this world (heaven, the afterlife, nirvana, etc.) that they will live in for eternity with their spouse. I'm telling you this place seems to f-ed up to me with people fornicating with other people besides their biological partner for eternity. Maybe some people that are married and love their real eternity spouse could understand that it is not medically natural for a person to have multiple sexual partners besides your eternity partner. Even if one has not met their eternity partner yet they should NOT fornicate with other people. It is medical disorder.

The point is that one's eternity partner can not be someone of the same sex. This is just absurd. Or a woman taking an elephant or a dog as her eternity partner.

Why not classify homosexuality a disease and let people serve in the military under the pretense that they do not preform any homosexual activity while in the employment of the military and understand that they are physically ill. They would be able to freely tell individuals though that they are sick/gay if they want to.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | November 24, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

You know I use to see this as justice and a matter of heart. Now it seems to me that you are stupid if you believe it is biologically natural for a man to fornicate with another man. It is like a man fornicating with a horse or something different from his species. The man goes with the woman...it's not religion it's science. Personally I think this whole planet is whack. One person is only suppose to partner with one other person for their lifetime--that partner being someone of the opposite sex. This whole dating and girlfriends and boyfriends thing has got to go. The problem I think is that folks believe in 'death' and don't get that there is a life beyond this world (heaven, the afterlife, nirvana, etc.) that they will live in for eternity with their spouse. I'm telling you this place seems to f-ed up to me with people fornicating with other people besides their biological partner for eternity. Maybe some people that are married and love their real eternity spouse could understand that it is not medically natural for a person to have multiple sexual partners besides your eternity partner. Even if one has not met their eternity partner yet they should NOT fornicate with other people. It is medical disorder.

The point is that one's eternity partner can not be someone of the same sex. This is just absurd. Or a woman taking an elephant or a dog as her eternity partner.

Why not classify homosexuality a disease and let people serve in the military under the pretense that they do not preform any homosexual activity while in the employment of the military and understand that they are physically ill. They would be able to freely tell individuals though that they are sick/gay if they want to.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | November 24, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse


Another leftist pipedream. The Dims cannot even round up the votes among their own senators. The last time repeal of DADT was voted on three Dims joined all Republicans in voting against repeal.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 24, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Gallup reports that less than a third of the population wants repeal of DADT. The attempted homosexualization of the best military on Earth is part and parcel of the Obamanation. It is a contemptable parting shot by the radical, homosexual lobby and the Obamacrats who want to outrage America one more time before they fade into oblivion.

I hope the Republicans and maybe a few Democrats can hold the line before this full frontal assault on American values and power.

The best way to ruin our military forces is to turn them into homosexual enclaves. That's what this repeal will do.

Next we'll have military, "gay pride" parades down mainstreet, USA.

It will be a grotesque mockery of what once was.

DADT must stand.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 11:43 PM
__________________________________
First off, Gallup reports that about 70% support the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly. Majorities of self-identified Republicans, conservatives, those over 65, and even weekly church-goers support repeal of DADT. There is not one demographic, except homophobes, that supports DADT. You are either a liar or completely ignorant.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127904/broad-steady-support-openly-gay-service-members.aspx

The rest of your screed just displays raw bigotry and hatred. Very sad.

Posted by: luridone | November 24, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

"Gallup reports that less than a third of the population wants repeal of DADT. "

Simply not true. Poll after poll shows around 70% support for ending DADT. And the percentages are even higher among the young.

You've lost this fight. The only question is if you'll man up and admit that.

As for gay parades down main street..... didn't that start around 40 years ago.

This isn't 1950 anymore. The sooner you realize we are ALL Americans (including gay Americans) the happier you will be.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 24, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

"The best way to ruin our military forces is to turn them into homosexual enclaves. That's what this repeal will do."

Funny how the Israelis, likely the toughest fighting forces known to man currently, say that adding openly gay soldiers made them an even better fighting force.

Are US soldiers really so much softer and poorer trained than the Israelis, that we can't do what they so easily did?

Ditto for the Brits, the Canadians, and a dozen or so other NATO allies.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 24, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse


Seems like this article assumes the House has passed or will pass a repeal of DADT. Has or will it?

Posted by: Garak

_______________________________________

Garak, the House passed the repeal as part of the Defense Authorization Bill. I forget when, but I'm sure you can google it.

As for Mr. Capehart's article, I think he's right, but I would like to add keeping the pressure up on Reid. He's the one who has the ability to bring the vote on it and the one who can make it palatable to the Republicans.

Also, anyone know if the DREAM act will be kept on bill? I'm hoping that if DADT repeal stays on, it's creating enough of a diversion so the immigration opponents don't notice.

Posted by: DCCharles | November 24, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

battleground = liar. Liars should be banned from these boards.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 24, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

The politicians must leave the decision to military professionals. Our armed forces are not the place for political correctness.

Posted by: thebump | November 24, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The politicians must leave the decision to military professionals. Our armed forces are not the place for political correctness.

Posted by: thebump | November 24, 2010 8:57 AM
====================

The military professionals didn't want blacks.

The military professionals didn't want women.

The military professionals don't want gays.
See a pattern?

Anyone who is willing to carry a gun and shoot it straight should be welcome to serve.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | November 24, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

MsJS

Your rights at airports flow with your purchase of a ticket after your decision to fly.

The owners of the planes have the right to protect their property, and the safety of all passengers...

Your rights do not prevail over theirs in their terminal and their plane.

Posted by: dutchess2 | November 24, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

MsJS

Your rights at airports flow with your purchase of a ticket after your decision to fly.

The owners of the planes have the right to protect their property, and the safety of all passengers...

Your rights do not prevail over theirs in their terminal and their plane.

Posted by: dutchess2 | November 24, 2010 9:12 AM
__________________________
Except it's not the owners of the planes that are insisting on invasive searches and pat-downs that constitute sexual assault. It's the government, and the government is subject to the 4th Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches, i.e., those where the authorities have no probably cause to suspect the particular individual of having committed, or being about to commit, a crime.

Posted by: luridone | November 24, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Typical of Capehart and his cronies. SO what do you have to offer for this vote? Enforcing our immigration laws including sanctuary cities? Or is this a typical democrat something for nothing. If you want to get something, you have to give something. Oh that's right, Barry and his ilk won, he doesn't have to give anything, he's the one! Bite me Dem's, you deserve what your getting.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | November 24, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

MsJS

Your rights at airports flow with your purchase of a ticket after your decision to fly.

The owners of the planes have the right to protect their property, and the safety of all passengers...

Your rights do not prevail over theirs in their terminal and their plane.

Posted by: dutchess2 | November 24, 2010 9:12 AM
__________________________
Except it's not the owners of the planes that are insisting on invasive searches and pat-downs that constitute sexual assault. It's the government, and the government is subject to the 4th Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches, i.e., those where the authorities have no probably cause to suspect the particular individual of having committed, or being about to commit, a crime.

Posted by: luridone | November 24, 2010 9:16 AM
===============================

Been to a Redskins game? They pat you down there too.

Government contractors have to go through metal detectors everyday to earn a living.

It is the reality of the times we are living in.

If we don't have those scans (or pat downs) and a plane gets bombed you will be the first one blaming for not doing enough to protect us.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | November 24, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

If they repeal DADT, and I will wager they don't, that means the military rules will return to what they were before DADT. Those rules allowed and encouraged the investigation, identification, and discharge of suspected homosexuals.

All you "experts" who have never served a day in the military don't have a clue as to the effect of having an admitted homosexual in a combat or support unit. Military officers and NCOs don't need another perpetual headache. They already spend an inordinate amount of time resolving problems caused by women in combat units. They don't need additional gay related problems.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | November 24, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

So perpetuating bigoted policies is just a way to give Democrats their comeuppance? Appreciate the honest sharing of real motivations, but this policy makes all of us lose.

"Typical of Capehart and his cronies. SO what do you have to offer for this vote? Enforcing our immigration laws including sanctuary cities? Or is this a typical democrat something for nothing. If you want to get something, you have to give something. Oh that's right, Barry and his ilk won, he doesn't have to give anything, he's the one! Bite me Dem's, you deserve what your getting." Posted by: elcigaro1

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | November 24, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

If they repeal DADT, and I will wager they don't, that means the military rules will return to what they were before DADT. Those rules allowed and encouraged the investigation, identification, and discharge of suspected homosexuals.

All you "experts" who have never served a day in the military don't have a clue as to the effect of having an admitted homosexual in a combat or support unit. Military officers and NCOs don't need another perpetual headache. They already spend an inordinate amount of time resolving problems caused by women in combat units. They don't need additional gay related problems.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | November 24, 2010 10:21 AM
========================

So the gays who are already serving will immediately become a problem if they don't have to hide it? They still have to wear their uniform properly. They still have to steer clear of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. The only thing that changes is that their off-base 'roommate' can now be their official boyfriend/girlfriend.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | November 24, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I liked my buddies a lot better when I had no idea what their personal private life was like. I would prefer if it stayed that way now. DADT is a good policy to follow whether or not it is the rules of the military or civilian life.

Posted by: chellisjr | November 24, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

So your personal preferences are more important than sound, fair policy?

You're an adult. If you are uncomfortable with someone sharing intimate details of their life with you, then ask them to stop.

Grow up!

"I liked my buddies a lot better when I had no idea what their personal private life was like. I would prefer if it stayed that way now. DADT is a good policy to follow whether or not it is the rules of the military or civilian life." Posted by: chellisjr

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | November 24, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

MsJS

Your rights at airports flow with your purchase of a ticket after your decision to fly.

The owners of the planes have the right to protect their property, and the safety of all passengers...

Your rights do not prevail over theirs in their terminal and their plane.

Posted by: dutchess2 | November 24, 2010 9:12 AM
__________________________
Except it's not the owners of the planes that are insisting on invasive searches and pat-downs that constitute sexual assault. It's the government, and the government is subject to the 4th Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches, i.e., those where the authorities have no probably cause to suspect the particular individual of having committed, or being about to commit, a crime.

Posted by: luridone | November 24, 2010 9:16 AM
===============================

Been to a Redskins game? They pat you down there too.

Government contractors have to go through metal detectors everyday to earn a living.

It is the reality of the times we are living in.

If we don't have those scans (or pat downs) and a plane gets bombed you will be the first one blaming for not doing enough to protect us.


Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | November 24, 2010 10:19 AM
_______________________________
The Redskins are a private entity, they're not subject to the 4th Amendment, they're within their rights to condition admittance to the stadium on a pat-down.

Metal detectors are much less intrusive than the new scanners, and WAY less intrusive than a pat-down that includes your crotch.

Somehow, the Israelis have managed to prevent terrorist attacks at Ben Gurion airport for over 35 years without nearly the intrusiveness that the TSA is engaged in. If they can do it, why can't we?

Posted by: luridone | November 24, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If they repeal DADT, and I will wager they don't, that means the military rules will return to what they were before DADT. Those rules allowed and encouraged the investigation, identification, and discharge of suspected homosexuals.

All you "experts" who have never served a day in the military don't have a clue as to the effect of having an admitted homosexual in a combat or support unit. Military officers and NCOs don't need another perpetual headache. They already spend an inordinate amount of time resolving problems caused by women in combat units. They don't need additional gay related problems.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | November 24, 2010 10:21 AM
_______________________________
You're apparently unaware of the Israeli Defense Forces, which has included women for decades, and allowed openly gay people to serve since 1993, with no apparent loss of military efficiency. And the IDF, pound for pound, is probably the best military in the world.

Posted by: luridone | November 24, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"Majorities in Georgia and Texas want abortion banned and prayer in school returned. A majority in New York City wants guns outlawed. Any of these things going to happen? No. They aren't majority-rule things."

Odd, how the argument against the court overturning Prop 8 was “Prop 8 was the will of the people, and the courts should not go against the will of the people”, and now we argue that the will of the people is insignificant when it comes to some issues like DADT.

I really think that the underling thought here is that gays should not be in the military, and that DADT does not go far enough, but the haters in the group don’t want to admit that their real issue is not with gays in the military or equal rights for gays, it is with gays. THEY DON”T WANT US TO EXIST. I’ll bet that some would like to see gays placed in confinement camps, or even possibly executed.

Posted by: The_Rat | November 24, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

SODOMY SUPPORTERS CONTINUALLY USE THE "BIGOTRY" CARD, AND THEY HAVE BEEN DISGUSTINGLY SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE LESS INVOLVED AND UNAWARE POPULOUS TO ACQUIESCE TO THOSE WHO CLAIM A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"! FROM WHERE DID ONE GET THIS ORIENTATION, AND WHY SHOULD WE CONDONE THESE DISGUSTING,DESTRUCTIVE,AND DISEASE SPREADING ACTS IN OUR ELITE MILITARY?

Posted by: lyn3 | November 24, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

No one condones any act that spreads disease. Unfortunately, I do not know of any sexual act performed by same sex couples that is not performed by opposite sex couples. If we are to accept your argument, should we not aggressively root all all members of our military, gay or straight, that participate in any of these "DISGUSTING,DESTRUCTIVE,AND DISEASE SPREADING ACTS"?

Posted by: The_Rat | November 24, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

So opposite sex couples practice "fisting, golden showers, and felching"? Your argument is is a "red herring",and you cannot dismiss the millions of homosexuals (and very few heteros) who have died of AIDS! Billions of your and my tax dollars to try and cure,or at least try to stem,the several diseases spread by their degenerate acts!

Posted by: lyn3 | November 24, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

For all of the homophobes out there -- if a gay/lesbian is willing to put his/her life on the line in service to his/her nation -- what is your complaint?
are you that insecure of your own sexual orientation?

you don't have to be straight to shoot straight!

Posted by: abbydelabbey | November 24, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Actually, yes, many straight couples participate in the acts you mention. As for AIDS, the numbers worldwide show a much higher number of opposite sex infections than same sex infections.

Try doing some simple on-line research. The internet is a great tool to help expand knowledge.

Posted by: The_Rat | November 24, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

There you go again- calling we who disagree with,and have strong religious moral beliefs against unnatural sex acts- "homophobes and bigots"! My statement re: total AIDS infections -does not include Africa! We need to "shout from the house tops" that the push for same-gender acceptance is wrong for our children and the well being of our society-especially our military!

Posted by: lyn3 | November 24, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Capehart...for a well-reasoned, logical, and unbiased commentary on the subject at hand.

I read the comments here and I find myself amazed by how far afield people wish to go with a simple decision process.

The question is elementary: Should all Americans be afforded the rights granted by our Constitution? Senator McCain is a hypocrite - he may not wish to acknowlege it...but, in all likelyhood he served with male and female homosexuals during his years in the Navy - he most asssuredly has during his tenure in Congress.

We are all Americans and entitled to all the rights and priveleges that status affords - I served in the military and fought in a war - that opportinity should be denied to noone!

Perhaps we should outlaw sex...problem solved!

Posted by: vagaf31 | November 24, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Do your strong religious beliefs extend to caffeine, nicotine or alcohol, or is sex your primary focus? And as for sex, is it the total sexual spectrum of sexual acts between men and women and same sex partners, or is it selective, focused only on gays? I mean, if we are going to take the moral high ground, it does not matter who performs the act, it is the act itself that is immoral, right? Your fight should be against all acts that are immoral, thus paving the way for an oligarchy, similar to Iran, where the laws of the land are subject to a religious review that subjugates all citizens to a faith based court. In this case, your faith.

As to your numbers excluding Africa, I think they have to exclude Asia as well.

Posted by: The_Rat | November 24, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

We should never grant special rights to any group other than those with immutable(born with)traits-IE: race, skin color, or gender!
A group of child molesters, or those who practice bestiality,or transvetites,or bigamists,can then make their claim for special treatment!

Posted by: lyn3 | November 24, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

At least we agree on something. I too do not think there should be special recognition given to religion. If I want to evict or not hire a person based on his/her religious views, I should be able to do that, since religion is not an immutable trait.

As for this argument, repealing DADT is not granting special rights, it is allowing people to have the right to serve, with no restrictions based on who they sleep with. (And yes, I do not think this applies to people who sleep with animals, or minors.)

Does that mean we can take the tax-exempt status away from churches?

Posted by: The_Rat | November 24, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse


I don't support the repeal of DADT because it just gives our troops one more (unnecessary) thing to worry about.

Let our troops concentrate on their jobs at hand, and not have to worry about being accused of being a homophobe, or if a gay service member accidently becomes a victim of "friendly fire" then suddenly you have accusations of hate crimes in the military.

For all it's worth, I think it's much better to keep your sexual preference to yourself.

It's not as if anybody wants to know who's gay and who isn't.

Next will be the issue of cross-dressing for gays in the military.

This whole gay thing is just going to darn far and is getting way out of hand, requires too much work, and needlessly causes the visual of guys who like to take it in arse.

No thank you.

Posted by: lindalovejones | November 24, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse


I don't support the repeal of DADT because it just gives our troops one more (unnecessary) thing to worry about.

Let our troops concentrate on their jobs at hand, and not have to worry about being accused of being a homophobe, or if a gay service member accidently becomes a victim of "friendly fire" then suddenly you have accusations of hate crimes in the military.

For all it's worth, I think it's much better to keep your sexual preference to yourself.

It's not as if anybody wants to know who's gay and who isn't.

Next will be the issue of cross-dressing for gays in the military.

This whole gay thing is just going to darn far and is getting way out of hand, requires too much work, and needlessly causes the visual of guys who like to take it in arse.

No thank you.

Posted by: lindalovejones | November 24, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"And the IDF, pound for pound, is probably the best military in the world."

Posted by: luridone
===========================================

That canard applies only when Israel is fighting ill trained, third world people armed with leftover WWII ground warfare armaments trying to defend themselves against Israelis armed with the state-of-the art arms, missiles, airplanes and helicopters extorted from American taxpayers. Even Capehart could be considered a great flaming warrior if he fought against those almost defenseless people.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | November 24, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Any enlisted man or woman who is more concerned about his/her fellow soldier's sexual orientation than the enemy, and wants to rid them from the military is failing in his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Such soldiers are a disgrace to us, and should be discharged dishonorably.

They are only there for a paycheck that they cannot earn otherwise.

I support the rights of the disabled innocents to unreasonable physical searches at our nation's airports.

AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | November 24, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's what most young people think of DADT anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55mAhgZRCzE

Just leave it in the past!

Posted by: scathingres | November 24, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

All the sick religious based hate comments against gay people mirror the same things said against blacks etc.

And yes eg 57% pf the blacks voted to support prop Hate in CA

Amazing how conservative religion corrupts minds, and always needs someone to hate to sell its brand of hate, which it calls love.
We are fighting the wrong war on terrorism - we have a talibangelical element, and some people from the church of Hitler still UNexcommucated (Catholic) who now hate gay peeople and dig up the old stereotypes to demonize gay people.

If you dont have the guts to deal at an honest level with gay people, you are a threat to every one of your fellow soldiers and americans as well. Talk about bravery under fire - you would be running away from the battle before it started.

And here we are, seeing people demonize the very people who are willing to lay down their lives for their country that in some ways pariahs them just like Hitler did to the Jews in the lead up to the holocaust.

Maybe we should just have all the gays - every last one of them come out. Why fight for a country that demonizes you and people who believe in religious values best described as ignorant, hateful, and susperstitions left over from the dark ages.

Let the gays all leave the service, all 100,000 or so of them

And the taliban will totally take over Afghanistan, our efforts there to prevent their ultimate capture of Pakistani nuclear weapons will fail.

Thats what all these pro DADT people want.

Its what they deserve3 if there was only some way we could insure that just they would incure the mad rath of the taliban. People so similarr to those who hate gays.

And here in the USA they call themselves Patriots.

Just another lie. Or is it pure ignorance?

Posted by: n6621j | November 25, 2010 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Just got to comment on the TSA thing since people want to bring that up.

My rights to the life of my family and the otehr people on the plane trump your rights to 'so called privacy". The TSA can see me in my birthday suit, whether the TSA person is str8, gay, M, or F (my doc is a F btw) in public for all I care if it stops one airplane and a hundred or more people from being murdered.

This is just another right wing discredit the government FOX news BS driven scene. The govt that is trying to protect us from murder. NO wonder Fox is banned in Britain and Canada.

We are at War, its as simple as that. Not a war for territory, but a war with mainiacs who think they will get 72 virgins to f*** for their pleasure for mass murdering people, their only goal being to murder for murder's sake.

If the complainers have any better solution - nothing is perfect btw, I'd like to hear it.

Maybe someday we'll have the "pattern recognition" software and computer power that will be able to give a Green vs Red without anyone seeing the body scan.

But that is one of the areas where computers still lag enormously behind what people can see and recgonize. Just the way it is. ps- I spent most of my carreer in computers, including 20 yrs as a tech tguy at Intel.

Posted by: n6621j | November 25, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company