Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:45 PM ET, 12/10/2010

DADT repeal: now what?

By Jonathan Capehart

The effort to repeal don't ask don't tell (DADT) hit a brick wall Thursday with the defeat of the motion to reconsider debate on the defense authorization bill, better known as the NDAA. But there a variety of Plan B's -- some more optimal than others -- that could rid this country of a shameful, discriminatory policy that threatens national security and robs it of talent in the midst of two wars and other challenges around the world.

The legislative route is the best.

COLLINSLIEBERMAN.jpg

As I have long argued, DADT is an act of Congress and ought to be abolished by an act of Congress. And President Obama made it clear last night that he wants Congress to keep at it during the lame-duck. That's why a stand-alone bill -- S.4022 -- introduced by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and co-sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is perhaps the best route to repealing the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who got repeal through her chamber in May thanks to the tireless work of outgoing Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), said last night that she stands ready to move on the Senate measure.

The problem is time. The ticking clock that wore down the original effort to repeal DADT ticks still. If Congress, particularly the Senate, doesn't want the courts to do its job for it, lawmakers should move heaven and earth to pass the stand-alone measure. Stay over Christmas. Stay over New Year's. Udall is willing to. So is Lieberman. As one activist told me this week, it would be a massive failure for Congress to walk away for the holidays while 65,000 continue to serve in silence and others aren't even allowed to serve at all.

There's another, less attractive legislative proposal that would keep DADT on the books but give the defense secretary more discretion in (not) enforcing the gay ban. Let's call it the "and/or" swap. Right now, the secretary already has the discretion to not boot a servicemember under DADT if he thinks the person has violated the policy for the purposes of avoiding or ending service in the military. This authority lies within subsection (e) of the DADT law.

(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that--

(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and

(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

By replacing "and" between (1) and (2) with "or," commanders would have the ability to retain servicemembers slated for discharge under DADT if they thought separation would undermine military readiness.

Unilateral presidential action is no assured proposition.

In May 2009, the Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara proposed that Obama issue a stop-loss order to prevent the discharge of troops under DADT. But there are lingering questions within the administration as to whether the president can legally apply the "Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation" to DADT cases. In addition, there is concern that the use of such authority might be a stretch that could be vulnerable to legal challenge. And for those who insist Obama can do for gays what President Truman did for blacks in the military they should heed what Obama said in October. "[T]he difference between my position right now and Harry Truman's was that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally," he said during a youth town hall.

Continued court action, however, is assured.

DADTCover.jpg

What the Obama administration does now is unclear. Activists want the president to declare DADT unconstitutional and to no longer defend the law in court. He has explicitly refused to do the former and has been reluctant to break tradition and precedent to do the latter. This much is clear. The Pentagon Working Group's "Review of the issues associated with the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'" changes the ball game. While the administration's defense of DADT in court has been less than robust, the conclusions of the Pentagon report -- that allowing gays to serve openly would not harm military effectiveness -- and the testimony of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could undermine the government's defense going forward. Not that I would shed one tear if that prediction came true.

Still, Congress not the courts is essential to the end of DADT.

Gates yesterday once again made the case for congressional action during the lame-duck session. On his flight back from the Middle East, he said that if repeal of DADT were not done legislatively his "greatest worry would be that we are at the mercy of the courts, and all of the lack of predictability that entails." The inability to control a policy change as sweeping as the end of DADT is a nightmare for an institution that runs on order, discipline and predictability.

9thMAP.jpg

And Gates added another dimension to the nightmare scenario that the folks on Capitol Hill should pay attention to. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds an October district court ruling that DADT is unconstitutional, there is a possibility that it would only apply to the nine Western states and two territories in its jurisdiction. Thus creating an untenable legal and logistical tangle for the Pentagon, the Obama administration and the nation.

Congress must not let this happen.Continued legislative inaction when the votes for repeal are within reach is unacceptable.

By Jonathan Capehart  | December 10, 2010; 2:45 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: Friday p-Op quiz: 'My bad' edition
Next: The Dream Act affects more than Latinos

Comments

Good luck with that Dims. Bernie Sanders has be filibustering in the Senate since 10:30 a.m. this morning. He is still talking seven hours later. The topic? Taxes.

There are only five days left in the lame duck session and the only thing that is going to get voted on is the tax bill and the budget. We shall see.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 10, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

hello everyone,Welcome to our website

===== http://www.buyshopping.us/ =======

accept paypal or credit card and free shipping

We need your support and trust!!!

Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps

To our website Walk around A look at

Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth

You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

=== http://www.buyshopping.us/ =====

Posted by: niaoren99 | December 10, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I was mistaken to believe that heterosexual soldiers would retain the right to shield their bodies from the eyes of anyone who could take a sexual interest in them.

DADT works because gays and lesbians pretend they're straight, and straights pretend their privacy is not being violated.

Only slave owners have the legal right to view the naked bodies of people to whom they can become sexually attracted. I thought the senate would decline to re-instate "droit de seigneur" in North America.

I thought a lot of things.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Just as our troops don't give up in Afghanistan every time the Taliban wins a skirmish there, the forces of freedom in the U.S. should not give up whenever the Taliban has a minor victory here at home.

The long term answer is to vote out every Republican piece of trash there is in Congress, so that freedom can prevail both here and in central Asia.

Long live western liberal secular values. The Taliban WILL be defeated.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 10, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

DADT should be moved off of the Defense bill and looked at as a stand-alone. This should have been done when it was first discussed a couple of months ago -- but it was more important for Harry Reid and others on both sides to play politics and not have a vote than to actually stand up for a side.

DADT needs to go along with any rule about gays in the military. I served in the infantry with a couple of guys we were sure were gay and few people really cared. The only people we ever came across who had real issues were the guys who hit on every woman they met in a bar, believing they were god's gift. And they were concerned that since they were 'god's gift to women', the gays must also want them too.

If every other major western nation, with cultures like ours, can deal with this, we can too. Heck, conservative Israel and Saudi allows them with no problems nor any signs of soldiers quitting.

Posted by: MadiganT | December 10, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"The only people we ever came across who had real issues were the guys who hit on every woman they met in a bar, believing they were god's gift. And they were concerned that since they were 'god's gift to women', the gays must also want them too."

Guys who need to hit on every woman in sight are extremely insecure about their manhood or sexuality, and hence are continually out to prove something. This goes along with the mindset of someone who would worry about whether the guy in the next bunk was gay or straight. They really don't think the gays want them, but are just terribly insecure about who they are. They may be fighting with themselves about same-sex attraction, and therefore gay people are VERY threatening to them.

And yes, it's amazing that such a long list of our allies did this long ago, but American conservatives don't think our armed forces is professional enough to manage the same thing. It really comes down to "do you think our men and women are as professional as those of Albania, Australia, Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Bermuda and Uruguay?"

For conservatives, the answer is a resounding "NO, we don't".

Posted by: B2O2 | December 10, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"Only slave owners have the legal right to view the naked bodies of people to whom they can become sexually attracted."

Wow, I've seen a lot of crazy arguments about DADT, but that one is new. And the craziest yet.

And factually untrue: There are a lot of jobs that involve seeing other people naked. Those jobs are, presumably held by some gay people, and while there are undoubtedly some bad actors, this does not seem to be a huge, unmanageable problem in society.

Neither does it seem to be a big problem in a variety of militaries around the world where gays serve openly, including Israel's, a military renowned for its combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.

Posted by: Meridian1 | December 10, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

And factually untrue: There are a lot of jobs that involve seeing other people naked. Those jobs are, presumably held by some gay people, and while there are undoubtedly some bad actors, this does not seem to be a huge, unmanageable problem in society.

Posted by: Meridian1 | December 10, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

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

Name an example where a person has a legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom he or she can be sexually attracted.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

There are procedures to deal with raping women in the military. They would also apply to men.

I think our military is professional enough to handle homosexuals and vice-versia. The United States is a great country at least as great as Albania, Australia, Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Bermuda and Uruguay.

So let's prove it and have homosexuals in the military. It is hypocrisy to draft homosexuals but not to let them enlist. Yeah, everyone will be homosexual should there be a draft.

The opponents to homosexuals in the military have been listening to too much Village People.

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | December 10, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Capehart says "shameful, discriminatory policy that threatens national security and robs it of talent in the midst of two wars and other challenges around the world."
Oh come on, Mr. Capehart, even for a columnist that's a stretch.
Too bad, Pelosi and the Democrats in the House didn't do this as a separate bill in the first place instead of tucking it into a catchall Defense Authorization.

Posted by: grad1 | December 10, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"There are procedures to deal with raping women in the military. They would also apply to men."

Men have no right to view the naked bodies of women, regardless of what rape laws apply. In fact, there are laws that protect women (and men) from having their naked bodies viewed by those who could become sexually attracted to them. Heterosexual men who illegally view the naked bodies of women are promptly convicted and placed on a sex offender registry.

If they repeal DADT, then gays who openly view the naked bodies of men to whom they are sexually attracted will be empowered as socially normative. Why is heterosexual conduct aberrent while homosexual conduct is normal?

That doesn't seem equal.

I still can't identify an instance where one person has a legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom he or she could become sexually attracted.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

"I still can't identify an instance where one person has a legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom he or she could become sexually attracted."Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 9:38 PM

I am trying to imagine a high school in this country that would deny gay high school students their right to use the boys' bathroom if they are a boy or the girls' bathroom if they are a girl.

Or the shower, in high schools with swimming pools.

Know of any? Any guess what a judge would say if a principal kept a kid from going to the bathroom, locker room or shower just because he found out that kid was gay?

Interesting. With respect, are you sure you've thought this through?

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 10, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

it is easy dont ask dont tell with new gop congress -dont bring it up again

Posted by: dagner49 | December 10, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

ricklinguist,

There is a legal requirement that a child be educated, but not a legal requirement that a child be in a specific school, classroom, or class. The "right" you imagine is actually a conditional privilege. Any child whose behavior is too disruptive won't be allowed to attend public school.

Imagine a girl who consistently used the boys' locker room and bathroom because she believed herself to be a boy in a girl's body. Would she have a "right" to engage in that sort of conduct regardless of the disruptive effect it had on the educational environment?

My guess is that all public education is conditional based on the behavior of the pupil.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"The DoD "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' ” published 30 November 2010 reported that 67% of Marines in the combat arms "said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness" if they were forced to serve with openly homosexual Marines. That "negative impact" stems from the Corps' tradition of character; character that defines Marines of conscience."
For the rest of this thesis plus 9 others against repeal, see: http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Marines_of_Conscience_or_Ho.php

Posted by: MAJUSMCRET | December 11, 2010 6:19 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic seems to have an unflagging interest in this topic. Very odd arguments. Kinda creepy, actually.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Once again, we see one with no military experience speaking authoratively on matters military. It is a case of Isabella's axiom proved: 'Most assured of that which he knows the least.'

Were open homosexuality to be embraced by the armed forces there would be a mass exodus of the most critical components of our servicemen and women -- those closest to and in the front lines. This cadre of marines and infantry fighters; officers, NCO's and enlisted, the ones who carry the rifles and grenade launchers, are overwhelmingly opposed to such a change.

Likewise, a reported 63% of all servicemen and women, when asked directly on the subject (as opposed to the so called poll conducted by the pentagon which only 'inferred' its conclusions by indirect questioning), favored continuing the ban now in place.

Egalitarian homosexual ideals have no place in a war zone. Implemented, they would also grossly undermine morale. In a war zone, low morale costs lives.

Let those who have not lived it say differently, they can join the discredited clan of those Isabella would scorned.

John R. Bomar
Army Security Agency (NSA)
Vietnam, '69-70

Posted by: johnrbomar | December 11, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Once again, we see one with no military experience speaking authoratively on matters military. It is a case of Isabella's axiom proved: 'Most assured of that which he knows the least.'

Were open homosexuality to be embraced by the armed forces there would be a mass exodus of the most critical components of our servicemen and women -- those closest to and in the front lines. This cadre of marines and infantry fighters; officers, NCO's and enlisted, the ones who carry the rifles and grenade launchers, are overwhelmingly opposed to such a change.

Likewise, a reported 63% of all servicemen and women, when asked directly on the subject (as opposed to the so called poll conducted by the pentagon which only 'inferred' its conclusions by indirect questioning), favored continuing the ban now in place.

Egalitarian homosexual ideals have no place in a war zone. Implemented, they would also grossly undermine morale. In a war zone, low morale costs lives.

Let those who have not lived it say differently, they can join the discredited clan of those Isabella would scorn.

John R. Bomar
Army Security Agency (NSA)
Vietnam, '69-70

Posted by: johnrbomar | December 11, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

Were open homosexuality to be embraced by the armed forces there would be a mass exodus of the most critical components of our servicemen and women -- those closest to and in the front lines. This cadre of marines and infantry fighters; officers, NCO's and enlisted, the ones who carry the rifles and grenade launchers, are overwhelmingly opposed to such a change.

John R. Bomar
Army Security Agency (NSA)
Vietnam, '69-70

Posted by: johnrbomar | December 11, 2010 7:02 AM
________________________________________

No mass exodus (or even minor exodus for that matter) in the countries of our allies who did this long ago. Simply a non-issue.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

"...My guess is that all public education is conditional based on the behavior of the pupil."Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 10:57 PM

Um....ok. And this is different from the Military, where service is conditional based on the BEHAVIOR of the soldier?

Even without DADT, a soldier who harasses another soldier faces disciplinary action. Always has.

Same as everywhere else.

I believe I am right in saying that a non-disruptive gay student has rights and is NEVER taken out of his school just because someone else has a problem with his being gay. He has a right to the use of the bathroom and the gym shower, the same as every other student who behaves himself.

As for the "legal requirement that every child be educated", everything I wrote about high school could be said about young adults in universities, or everywhere else in society. We do NOT segregate out non-disruptive people. They get to live their lives.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

A person's sexuality doesn't belong on the battlefield. Gays want that to change. They've turned DADT and the military services into their personal battlefield, and won't stop until they can force their version of 'acceptable' military conduct on the US govt.


If this issue was merely about a gay person's 'job performance' (which it never has been), and not about national "acceptance" of gay people (which it really is) then tell me why are gay people suing businesses into closing down if the business does not do what the gay person tells them they must do?

Why did a photographer get sued by a gay person because the photographer didn't want to take photos at the gay person's 'ceremony'? Why couldn't the gay person have just found another photographer? That would have been the easiest thing to do, the right thing to do, but the gay person wanted to force their will, their lifestyle, upon that photographer.

When gays whine about being 'bullied' or 'discriminated against', they make we want to puke. What a bunch of lazy, selfish, narcissistic BULLIES they are. Why would they EVER think they are entitled somehow to take over the country, just because of who they choose to have a relationship with?

The 'gay rights' issue isn't about 'rights' at all, it's about 'gay domination', putting the rest of us into a new form of slavery..............and that's just wrong.

NO REPEAL OF DADT. FORCE GAYS TO LIVE THEIR LIVES PEACEFULLY AND PRIVATELY. FORCE GAYS TO LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE.

Posted by: momof20yo | December 11, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

"Why did a photographer get sued by a gay person because the photographer didn't want to take photos at the gay person's 'ceremony'? Why couldn't the gay person have just found another photographer?"

I sort of agree with you.

As a gay person, I really just want to live my life. I don't go out seeking situations where people will beat me up just because I am getting married to the person I love, for example.

My partner and I got married in the same Jewish temple where he had become bar mitzvah decades before. The rabbi was very pleased. Had he said "no way", we would have gone elsewhere, sad that we couldn't do it where we wanted to for family and sentimental reasons, but we would have survived.

The problem is that our society has been pretty nasty over the years to people like me...who are just trying to live our lives.

In my lifetime, they used to lock up gay people for such "offenses" as wanting to dance together in a dancing hall. I remember.

When gay couples first started having commitments ceremonies, there were very few photographers, very few caterers, very few venues ANYWHERE that they could use.

In the college town I lived in in the 1970s, these ceremonies were done in the one church in the region that was supportive. That was it. Photographers were friends with cameras.

Times have changed, of course, at least in some places. Many of us have more choices now. And that's great.

I am guessing that it's still next to impossible in many parts of the country to find a professional photographer who caters to gay commitment ceremonies.

I just did some Google searches for Biloxi, Mississippi (sorry to pick on Biloxi!) and found none listed.

Doesn't mean one couldn't find one, but, well, given the animus faced by gay couples in the so-called "Bible Belt", it's probably not a walk in the park!

Still, I take you point. Why cause trouble? If you can FIND a good photographer who doesn't despise what you're doing, hey, who wouldn't rather give their business to a friend rather than a jerk?

But like the struggle to be able to eat in any restaurant you please (even if there's another one just down the road?), I suspect there will always be people who prefer to fight for what's right rather than simply submit to the status quo.

That's one of the ways that we as a society change--and become more accepting of people we once relegated to outskirts of "acceptable" society.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Ricklinguist

Calling people a 'jerk' because they won't do what you want is wrong. They have the 'right' to their pesonal belief, too, you know. They DON'T HAVE TO cater to your whims, your lifestyle. It is up to YOU to make your life meaninful, happy and productive.
Stop thinking of yourself as a 'second class citizen' (gay people's words, not mine). Stop expecting pity and special treatment. Stop using your 'gayness' to get something you really don't "need", shouldn't have.

If you sue people, or otherwise find ways to force them to do what you think you want, do they really 'accept' you? Not likely. Are you getting the best you think you 'deserve' from someone you've forced to do something for you? Not likely. Have you changed their minds about gay people? Not likely. They'll probably dislike you more if you force them to do something they don't believe in.

So why not just ask your friends to help you find a 'gay' photographer for your 'ceremonies', instead of forcing someone to do what they don't believe in?

What if a gay photographer didn't want to photograph a 'straight' person's wedding? (I don't know that I would want to title myself as a 'gay' or 'straight' photographer, I'd rather be known as just a photographer) I also didn't know that there was now a different phone book just so gays could find each other. (sorry to be snarky, but you'll get the point I'm trying to make once you get the chip off your shoulder)
Would the 'straight' person have the right to sue the gay photographer? Yes. Would you be calling it a 'hate crime'? Yes, you would. Is that right? NO. Fair is fair. You have to compromise, just like everyone else. To think YOU don't have to compromise anything because you're gay, is immature & selfish & foolish, is being a bully, is wrong in every way.

There are still racists, always will be, even after the end of slavery, even after the 1960s civil rights acts for black Americans. Laws won't change everyone's beliefs, and you shouldn't spend your time crying and whining that everyone doesn't like you. It's actually very sad that you do cry and whine that everyone doesn't like you. It will never happen. Go, live your life. Be as happy as you can be. Don't intrude on others right to enjoy their life.

Why do you have to be a 'gay' soldier? Why not just be a soldier like everyone else? A man serving in the military is a soldier. A woman serving in the military is a soldier.
When I was in the military, I wore the same BDU uniform, the same boots, as the male soldiers. Dress uniforms were slightly altered for men & women's different body shapes, but the colors were the same. **When you are in the military, you are a soldier----period**. Not a 'gay' soldier. Not a 'heterosexual' soldier. There is no need, no 'right' to end DADT.

Posted by: momof20yo | December 11, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Ricklinguist

Calling people a 'jerk' because they won't do what you want is wrong. They have the 'right' to their pesonal belief, too, you know. They DON'T HAVE TO cater to your whims, your lifestyle. It is up to YOU to make your life meaninful, happy and productive.
Stop thinking of yourself as a 'second class citizen' (gay people's words, not mine). Stop expecting pity and special treatment. Stop using your 'gayness' to get something you really don't "need", shouldn't have.

If you sue people, or otherwise find ways to force them to do what you think you want, do they really 'accept' you? Not likely. Are you getting the best you think you 'deserve' from someone you've forced to do something for you? Not likely. Have you changed their minds about gay people? Not likely. They'll probably dislike you more if you force them to do something they don't believe in.

So why not just ask your friends to help you find a 'gay' photographer for your 'ceremonies', instead of forcing someone to do what they don't believe in?

What if a gay photographer didn't want to photograph a 'straight' person's wedding? (I don't know that I would want to title myself as a 'gay' or 'straight' photographer, I'd rather be known as just a photographer) I also didn't know that there was now a different phone book just so gays could find each other. (sorry to be snarky, but you'll get the point I'm trying to make once you get the chip off your shoulder)
Would the 'straight' person have the right to sue the gay photographer? Yes. Would you be calling it a 'hate crime'? Yes, you would. Is that right? NO. Fair is fair. You have to compromise, just like everyone else. To think YOU don't have to compromise anything because you're gay, is immature & selfish & foolish, is being a bully, is wrong in every way.

There are still racists, always will be, even after the end of slavery, even after the 1960s civil rights acts for black Americans. Laws won't change everyone's beliefs, and you shouldn't spend your time crying and whining that everyone doesn't like you. It's actually very sad that you do cry and whine that everyone doesn't like you. It will never happen. Go, live your life. Be as happy as you can be. Don't intrude on others right to enjoy their life.

Why do you have to be a 'gay' soldier? Why not just be a soldier like everyone else? A man serving in the military is a soldier. A woman serving in the military is a soldier.
When I was in the military, I wore the same BDU uniform, the same boots, as the male soldiers. Dress uniforms were slightly altered for men & women's different body shapes, but the colors were the same. **When you are in the military, you are a soldier----period**. Not a 'gay' soldier. Not a 'heterosexual' soldier. There is no need, no 'right' to end DADT.

Did your commitment ceremony become any less meaningful to you because your photographer was a friend, and not a professional photographer?

Posted by: momof20yo | December 11, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"Calling people a 'jerk' because they won't do what you want is wrong."Posted by: momof20yo | December 11, 2010 10:08 AM

You're right, of course. Sorry about that. It gets frustrating when people don't see things the way I do--just as, I suspect, you get frustrated when people don't see things the way you do! So I stand admonished. And apologize!

That said, it was kind of difficult to FIND a photographer when virtually all of society labeled gay couples as "perverts" and made it virtually impossible for them to live their lives together without having to play pretend.

Playing pretend isn't quite as easy as you may think. Having done it for a number of years, I have to tell you that it not only takes a heavy toll, but it generally doesn't fool anyone.

"Why do you have to be a 'gay' soldier? Why not just be a soldier like everyone else? A man serving in the military is a soldier. A woman serving in the military is a soldier."

Thank you. I think you've just made the most elegant plea POSSIBLE for ending DADT.

DADT says "you are a gay soldier and as soon as that reality is known, you are subject to discharge."

Why not do as you suggest-- let people just do their job and risk their lives for you and me?

If that soldier happens to have a partner back home, why on earth should THAT be a disqualifier for serving?! That's what DADT is about, after all: setting up special disqualifying conditions but ONLY if you happen to be gay. You don't think that's weird?!

I suspect we are closer in position than you think. You are misinterpreting DADT to mean that GAY soldiers think they should be treated differently/unfairly for being gay.

The opposite is the case: let them be treated the same as everyone else.

Heterosexual soldiers get to serve without having to pretend they are single or not dating or spent the weekend with a "friend."

Let's stop setting up special rules and regulations just for the gay soldiers.

They bleed just as red, white and blue as the non-gay ones, no?

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"What if a gay photographer didn't want to photograph a 'straight' person's wedding?"

Generally, I assume that the law should treat everyone the same. I assume that there are rules governing businesses. If they have the right not to cater to anyone they want for whatever reason or reasons they want, that's fine with me. I do not believe that gay people should be treated specially.

I also don't believe that I should be treated DISfavorably by the law. Treat us ALL the same. Period.

DADT, of course, does exactly the opposite. Can you see that?

"Laws won't change everyone's beliefs, and you shouldn't spend your time crying and whining that everyone doesn't like you. It's actually very sad that you do cry and whine that everyone doesn't like you. It will never happen. Go, live your life. Be as happy as you can be. Don't intrude on others right to enjoy their life."

I think I must be giving a very warped impression of my life: I am extraordinarily blessed. I have a wonderful life, a wonderful partner, a great, supportive, loving family and some terrific friends.

While I of course didn't "choose" to be gay, I got over it a long time ago and followed the Talmudic dictum to be "content with one's portion in life"--at least that's what I strive for.

I don't go around with a happy face all the time, but all things considered, I can't complain!

The part I don't get is the "intruding on other people's lives."

We live in a society together, with people like us and different from us, people who think we're great and people who despise us-- for a variety of reasons, often unpredictable ones.

What that says to me is that we ALL have to be pretty tolerant of one another.

Yes, that means that gay people have to be tolerant of those who think they're immoral --and won't give them the time of day. (One of my other favorite maxims is actually a "new age" Christian one: "What you think of me is none of my business!")

It also means that people who don't LIKE or UNDERSTAND gay people have to put up with us as part of society. We don't have to live in Closets and pretend we're single, for example, when we're not-- no matter how much others might protest.

But the LAW is for all of us. You can't say "just live your life" while at the same time legislators set up legal roadblocks for innocent people just because.

Yes, black people still face ILLEGAL discrimination and that's terrible.

So do gay people, and that's equally terrible.

What is important is that the LAW be on the side of ensuring that laws treat us all fairly and equitably.

After all, it isn't just "their" government (whoever "their" is), it's OUR government. It belongs equally to you and to me. And that means it can't side with you OR me when it comes to treating us the same.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Very well put, ricklinguist.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Gay guy here. I'm glad the senate did not repeat DADT. I have no desire to fight for a country that treats its gay, tax-paying citizens (out the wahzoo, by the way, like pond scum.

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

For the life of me, I still cannot understand why most straight men believe (fear) that gay men are going to hit on them. Come on, guys, by the time you're adults you should realize that you're not all drop dead gorgeous, the very sight of whom drives other men, much less women, into a insane frenzy. Gay men have been showering with straight men since Kohler invented the shower head and so far, I haven't seen any reports of sex-crazed gay men attacking anyone in a shower. From phys ed classes in junior high and high school, sports teams, and especially in the military, gay men and straight men have been cleaning up together with no problem. Relax. Only in your imaginations (hopes) is there a problem.

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

None of us have a 'government-guaranteed' right to be married. Marriage is a privilege. So is serving in the US Military.

To 'gays' and 'straights':
Before you choose to serve in the military, or work at any job, know what you're getting into.
If you sign that military contract, you're legally bound to obey the rules and regulations of the military service. If you have to 'lie' to sign it, then you're wrong, the contract isn't.
You cannot change the military to suit your purpose. I didn't get to, so neither should you.

Black Americans could not hide the color of their skin, their 'difference', and suffered abuse for many years because of people's ignorance. Gay people do not have the same argument to fight with. You do not have to tell everyone your 'difference', you choose to do so, and then expect everyone to give you special treatment because of it.


I have seen "Whites Only" signs. I have NEVER SEEN a "Straights Only" sign anywhere. Gays have NEVER been forcibly brought into the US chained together on disease-infested ships. Gays have NEVER endured forced slavery, near-starvation. Gays have NEVER been denied the right to vote, to learn to read & write.

For gays to be comparing their issues to black Americans civil rights issues is utterly wrong, an insult to black Americans and an insult to every other American.

"What that says to me is that we ALL have to be pretty tolerant of one another."

Ok, so when you tell your gay friends not to sue everyone who doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle, maybe I'll start to listen to your point of view.
I have never said I hate gay people. I know many gay people, have worked with them, taken care of them in past healthcare jobs. I have gay relatives who have gone about their lives 'openly' while not demanding that everyone accept their lifestyle or else...They know I don't agree with gay marriage, so it's not a topic we have ever discussed. They have good jobs, a nice jointly-owned house, have three adopted children and seem to be good parents. They don't force me to accept their lifestyle, I don't force them to accept mine. They've never sued me for saying something they didn't like. I've never told anyone to shun them because they're gay.


Gay people seem to be spending/wasting too much of their life trying to find something to be unhappy about. I truly feel bad about that, but will I ever change my mind, and approve of gay marriage because of it? NOOOOOOO!!!!
For you to assume that all of us 'hate' you is wrong, and whining without truth to back it up.

Posted by: momof20yo | December 11, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

LOL, dnealesq. When I read the homophobic posts on this issue, I get the notion that our military men and women spend 24/7 in the shower. Having young military members of the family and friends in the military, I know for certain that this is not the case. By the way, they are all straight and all support the repeal of DADT. They view it as a complete non-issue. John McCain and his ilk are SO over the hill, they can't even see the top anymore.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Seaduck. As for John McCain, I have lost all respect for the man. He's compromised himself and his principles so much that I suspect he now has to pull out his driver's license to find out what his name is.

Posted by: dnealesq | December 11, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Gay people seem to be spending/wasting too much of their life trying to find something to be unhappy about. I truly feel bad about that, but will I ever change my mind, and approve of gay marriage because of it? NOOOOOOO!!!!
For you to assume that all of us 'hate' you is wrong, and whining without truth to back it up.

Posted by: momof20yo
________________________________________
I keep thinking that your posts must be tongue-in-cheek even though obviously they're not. It's hard to believe that you really know any gay people. No gay people I know (and I know tons) assume that all straight people hate them. And whining seems to be mostly coming from the Glen Becks! I have a VERY happy life, thank you. It would be even happier if I could marry my partner of 17 years. I keep thinking that you must have a lonely, unhappy life to be wasting so much of your time posting on this issue.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I should add marry my partner of 17 years in our home state of Virginia. That's where I've lived all of my 62 years and that's where we want all the rights that go along with marriage.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"If you sign that military contract, you're legally bound to obey the rules and regulations of the military service. If you have to 'lie' to sign it, then you're wrong, the contract isn't."

With respect, momof20yo, I believe you've skirted the central issue.

You've said that gay soldiers should just be soldiers like everybody else.

Why on earth should they then be told they have to obey a separate set of rules from everybody else?

Doesn't make sense to me, and it certainly goes against your central argument that when you're a soldier, you're a soldier, period.

DADT says your a soldier, parentheses: except if you're gay. Then DADT applies, but only to you.

Please explain what appears to be a pretty big contradiction.

Get rid of DADT, then it really will be "you're a soldier, period," right?

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Seaduck. As for John McCain, I have lost all respect for the man. He's compromised himself and his principles so much that I suspect he now has to pull out his driver's license to find out what his name is.

Posted by: dnealesq
_________________________________________
Couldn't agree more. Although a lifelong Democrat, I HAD a great deal of respect for John McCain. No more -- he's a relic from another era at best (and that's being VERY kind). I'm 62 - not all that terribly far from his age. If I ever lose it like he has, I would hope that I would still have the wisdom to bow out of the public sector.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"...Black Americans could not hide the color of their skin, their 'difference', and suffered abuse for many years because of people's ignorance..."

My uncle changed his surname so that it didn't sound "Jewish." Back then, companies had quotas and wouldn't hire him because he was Jewish.

He survived by pretending. Well, good for him: he had a family to feed.

But that doesn't justify a society that made it necessary for Jews to hide the fact that they were Jewish in order to get a job.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"For gays to be comparing their issues to black Americans civil rights issues is utterly wrong, an insult to black Americans and an insult to every other American."


With respect, suffering or injustice is not a contest.

The history of suffering of American blacks is well-known and awful. That doesn't make acceptable the mistreatment of others who weren’t enslaved.

When I was young, I watched "Roots" on TV with my beloved European-born grandmother.

At one point during the series, turning red with hurt or anger, she said, "At least they weren't herded into ovens by the millions and burnt to death".


I was appalled. Suffering is not a contest. What happened to her family in Europe was unspeakably awful. So was the enslavement of one group of humans by another in this country.


The mistreatment of innocent gay people has its own history, and it is awful enough without trying to win contests.

It includes having to hide the truth for fear of being discovered, kicked out of your home or job. In many periods of history, it included burning at the stake, or a number of other punishments.

In more recent memory, it included forced shock treatment. It still includes death in some parts of the world.

It has included parents having their own children wrested away from them in states where just being gay was deemed enough to make one "unfit" to be a parent. One's OWN CHILD.

And it is still impossible for most loving, committed gay couples to protect their most important relationship.

Suffering varies in how intense it is and how it manifests itself.

The cruelty in how society has long treated innocent gay people needn't be measured against OTHER cruelty. We can recognize how immoral and how unjustified the mistreatment is all by itself.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Your posts are absolutely on target and so well thought out, ricklinguist. Keep up the good work. I'm signing off now to write and call Senator Webb (yet again) in support of the repeal of DADT. After that, trimming the Christmas tree in my constant search to find something to be unhappy about. ;-)

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The failure of the Republican members of the U. S. Congress, to not repeal DADT, is a slap in the face to the U. S.Constitution.

Their inaction and bigoted attitude against fellow Americans, who just happen to be gay, I feel is a sign of disaster for the country.

We are in two wars and need every American that wants to fight. Yet, the GOP is conducting business as usual-like this is 1854.

Mitch McConnell, John McCain, especially McCain, you are a bunch of evil bigots. Although McCain charges the windmill everyday from every direction, he could support repeal of DADT , today.

Posted by: COWENS99 | December 11, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"Gay people do not have the same argument to fight with. You do not have to tell everyone your 'difference', you choose to do so, and then expect everyone to give you special treatment because of it."

Would you not be upset if your co-workers could all have photos of their spouses on their desks, talk casually on Monday about what they did with their families over the weekend, and bring their spouses and families to appropriate work events, while you could not even admit to having a spouse - or even a date, or even going to certain bars or clubs - without getting fired?
Gay people aren't asking for any more "special treatment" than heterosexuals get. The trouble is, people like you interpret being allowed to live a normal human life with normal family relationships as "special treatment" for gay people, since you'd really prefer they all kept their lives and their families secret. (Of course, gods forbid anyone ask YOU to keep your family life secret. Why, you even describe yourself openly as "momof2" without ANY concern for anyone who might not approve of people like you choosing to have children, or for people who dislike all children and all people who choose to have them, or who dislike the idea of having to picture the heterosexual sex you might have had to conceive such children. How DARE you not tailor your revelations about your private family life to suit those who are offended by your very existence? Why do you demand such selfish "special treatment" for your lifestyle?)

"Ok, so when you tell your gay friends not to sue everyone who doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle, maybe I'll start to listen to your point of view."

And when you tell your anti-gay friends not to kill people for being gay, maybe I'll start to agree that you deserve some civil rights for your family, too.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Every gay person in existence is responsible for the behavior of every other gay person, and so if one gay person does something to offend or upset you, all gay people must be punished. You anti-gay folks, however, are individual human beings who aren't responsible at ALL for the nastiness of your fringe.

"They don't force me to accept their lifestyle, I don't force them to accept mine."

But you seek to have their marriages denied the same basic protections that yours has as a matter of course, because you "don't believe in gay marriage." If someone were to seek to dsny you the legal rights of marriage, and all the benefits and protections that your marriage gives you and your kids, because they didn't approve of your choice of spouse, would you view them as tolerant or accepting? Or as unfairly intruding their busybody noses into your private life?

Posted by: Catken1 | December 11, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"
Gay people seem to be spending/wasting too much of their life trying to find something to be unhappy about. I truly feel bad about that, but will I ever change my mind, and approve of gay marriage because of it? NOOOOOOO!!!!
For you to assume that all of us 'hate' you is wrong, and whining without truth to back it up. "

I don't approve of people like you being married, since you define marriage more by its physical, animalistic aspects (genitals, breeding ability, chromosomes) rather than by its loving, spiritual, human side. I'm sorry that you go out of your way to feel unhappy because others call you a bigot (just because you attack their families, spouses and children with no provocation other than your disapproval of their choice of spouse - imagine! How dare they!). But is that going to make me approve of your bigot lifestyle? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

The difference being, of course, that I'm not trying to take anything away from you, deny you any of the benefits you and your family get from marriage, leave your kids less safe, less protected, less secure, or do you any damage at all, other than to argue with you verbally. You, on the other hand, view it as your Natural Right to tell my friends how to live, to attack their families, and deny them the right to choose their own spouses, because you don't approve of them. You want to tell honorable gay soldiers that they must either lose their jobs, or else keep everything about their personal lives a secret. (Meaning, among other things, that they may not even discuss what they did with their families on the weekends over the water cooler, keep a picture of their spouses on their desks at work, bring them to work events - let alone get them the health benefits, pensions, and other privileges that straight couples have for the asking. Military spouses have a da^ned tough job, and you would tell gay spouses that they don't even have the right to the most basic support that the military offers straight spouses? They don't even have the right to be _acknowledged_ as an important part of their soldier's lives?)

Frankly, I don't care if you hate gay people or not. You're willing to hurt them, their families, and their kids without provocation, and if you're doing out of hate or love, either way, it's hurtful and cruel. If someone did the like to you and your family, you wouldn't care if they loved you or not, you'd want them to get their nosy busybody selves out of your life and stop attacking you. That's all I want from you. You don't have to "approve", any more than I have to "approve" the genital-focused breeding arrangement you may call a "marriage." But you do have to let them live their lives, without interference, as THEY please, with EQUAL treatment under the law, and not insist they shove everything important to them into a secret closet or accept second-class status for their relationships because you're not comfortable with their existence as equals.

Posted by: Catken1 | December 11, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Once again, we see one with no military experience speaking authoratively on matters military. It is a case of Isabella's axiom proved: 'Most assured of that which he knows the least.'

Were open homosexuality to be embraced by the armed forces there would be a mass exodus of the most critical components of our servicemen and women -- those closest to and in the front lines. This cadre of marines and infantry fighters; officers, NCO's and enlisted, the ones who carry the rifles and grenade launchers, are overwhelmingly opposed to such a change.

Likewise, a reported 63% of all servicemen and women, when asked directly on the subject (as opposed to the so called poll conducted by the pentagon which only 'inferred' its conclusions by indirect questioning), favored continuing the ban now in place.

Egalitarian homosexual ideals have no place in a war zone. Implemented, they would also grossly undermine morale. In a war zone, low morale costs lives.

Let those who have not lived it say differently, they can join the discredited clan of those Isabella would scorned.

John R. Bomar
Army Security Agency (NSA)
Vietnam, '69-70
*****************************************
Yeah. I bet all those service people with issues about serving with homosexuals will rush right out to test that swell labor market we're in right now. You betcha'.

BTW, the soldiers aren't in charge. The CIC elected by the people has that responsibility. It would be a shame if turned out the members of our armed services aren't as adaptable to change as those of ALL of our allies. That doesn't strike me as an admirable trait.

Posted by: st50taw | December 11, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Name an example where a person has a legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom he or she can be sexually attracted."

A TSA worker reviewing body scanning machines? As far as I know, there's no requirement that all such workers view only pictures of those they can't possibly be sexually attracted to. (There's no law barring bisexuals from working for the TSA, is there?)

I went to a women's college. I've been naked plenty of times around known lesbians and bi women. Not a big deal. Really. I've known a lot of straight women who roomed with lesbian and bi women. None of them had a problem.

Honestly, I think straight men are just afraid they'll be treated the way they've treated women all their lives - as objects to be viewed with desire (by someone they might not want to be desired by). If a gay man or a lesbian behaves badly, remove them, just as you would a straight man or woman behaving badly. But if GLBT and straight kids can handle high school and college gym classes and dorm life, surely grown-up soldiers can manage in the military, too?

Posted by: Catken1 | December 11, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post homosexual article number 2,589...

Does the Washington Post have a homosexual department? Every day there is a new article on homosexuality. Every day.

Just wondering.

By the way, homosexuals account for 4 percent of the population. And most of them are ASHAMED of being homosexual.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 11, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Does the Washington Post have a homosexual department? Every day there is a new article on homosexuality. Every day."

Maybe if...people like you stopped insisting that gay people be treated differently because of who they are, gay people would stop needing to speak out and work towards their rights, and the issue would cease to be newsworthy? Just a thought.

Oh, forgot. No topic is newsworthy unless YOU approve of it. Sorry, didn't realize your interests were the center of the universe.

"By the way, homosexuals account for 4 percent of the population. And most of them are ASHAMED of being homosexual."

The percentage of GLBT people in the population varies according to who's counting and how. Sexuality is complicated and sometimes difficult to measure, particularly for us bi folks. But it wouldn't be OK to attack gay people if there were only one or two of them in the population, either. The small size of a minority population doesn't justify unfair treatment or unkind behavior on the part of the majority.

As for being "ashamed" of it, funny, no gay person I know is ashamed of their sexuality. And those who are usually are as a result of a lifetime of being told, by people like you, often by their own parents and loved ones, that to be the person they are is to be immoral, sick and wrong. If you were told all your life, by the people who most mattered to you, that your hair color made you immoral, sick and wrong, and justified other people hurting you and treating you as a second-class person, you'd be ashamed of your hair color, too. Doesn't make it right, nor would it make your hair color immoral or shameful in reality.


Posted by: Catken1 | December 11, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post homosexual article number 2,589...
Does the Washington Post have a homosexual department? Every day there is a new article on homosexuality. Every day.
Just wondering.
By the way, homosexuals account for 4 percent of the population. And most of them are ASHAMED of being homosexual.
Posted by: FormerDemocrat
_________________________________________
LOL. I just couldn't resist checking back amid my Christmas decorating to see if FormerDemocrat had posted anything yet. He/she usually doesn't miss a chance to read and comment on all postings related to gay and lesbian issues. Yep, an unflagging interest in the topic. Hmmm ....

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Um....ok. And this is different from the Military, where service is conditional based on the BEHAVIOR of the soldier?

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

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

Thanks for your input.

What do the words gay and lesbian describe, if not behavior?

You're flat-out mistaken about the "rights" of the well-behaved. As a heterosexual male, I have no legal right to use a female locker room or restroom regardless of my conduct. Why? Because it violates the privacy of the people who use those facilities.

Many people have wonderfully positive things to say about gays and lesbians. People tend to behave well and considerately of others as a habit, but rights are about things people can do regardless of how others feel. Gays and lesbians students may be tolerated, but I'm not convinced they have a legal right to be in areas where sexes are segregated for privacy reasons.

The military orders people to sleep, bathe, and dress in specific areas at specific times. Soldiers have no choice about when, where, and with whom they must live.

When I attended public school, the physical education instructors would require everyone to shower during the first week of school. Then they would make showering optional. I never considered it at the time, but someone may have raised the possibility that requiring showers when there was no assurance of privacy may have been the reason they modified the policy.

Can you name an example where a person has the legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom they can become sexually attracted, regardless of their own conduct and regardless of how the person viewed feels about the invasion of privacy?

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I would agree that FormerDemocrat has an unusual interest in the subject of homosexuality. Reminds me of Larry Craig ("I am not a homosexual, I have never been a homosexual"), Reverends Haggard and Rekers. I have never known it NOT to be the case that the most vehement homophobes turn out to be gay.

Posted by: dnealesq | December 11, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, I think straight men are just afraid they'll be treated the way they've treated women all their lives - as objects to be viewed with desire (by someone they might not want to be desired by).

Posted by: Catken1 | December 11, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

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

Funny you should say that. I'm arguing that heterosexuals should be treated the way I have always treated those to whom I can be sexually attracted, with respect for their privacy.

Your hatred of men is not a sufficient reason to violate the privacy of heterosexual soldiers and recruits.

By the way, females are vastly over-represented in the DADT discharge pool. Women comprise 14 percent of the military, but account for 50 percent of all DADT discharges. Lesbians in the military is a bigger issue than gays.

Your example of a TSA screener is a good one. Would we consider a TSA screener who can get a sexual thrill by watching full body scans or participating in pat downs to be ethical, moral, or professional? Or is that just about the most reprehensible person on earth -- getting a sexual thrill by ogling or touching a person who can't protest?

DADT makes liars of gays about their orientation and liars of straights about their privacy. But repeal of DADT will make gays and lesbians horribly immoral people as opposed to merely different.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse


I have never known it NOT to be the case that the most vehement homophobes turn out to be gay.

Posted by: dnealesq | December 11, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

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

So all of Sub-Saharan Africa is turning gay?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121101527.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"Can you name an example where a person has the legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom they can become sexually attracted, regardless of their own conduct and regardless of how the person viewed feels about the invasion of privacy?" Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 2:18 PM |

With respect, you keep changing the rules of your game. Now it's "regardless of their own conduct"?

What does that mean?

I do not believe that a gay person has the right to molest a straight person.

Guess what? I do not believe that a gay person has the right to molest a GAY person, either.

Showering with others in settings like high schools, colleges, the Military, gyms and so on, is ALWAYS by gender: men use men's lockers. Women use women's lockers. Period.

Can you name one example where gay people are required by law to use separate showers under these circumstances?


Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"What do the words gay and lesbian describe, if not behavior?"

They describe orientation.

A few examples:

A guy who is madly in love with his best (non-gay) friend, but never tells him. He hasn't DONE anything. He is in love. He's not gay because he never "behaved gay" with his friend?

I knew I was gay by the time I was 14. I wrote "I am a homosexual" in my journal way back then. It would be another 16 years before I even met another person I knew to be gay. Yet I spent an awful lot of energy trying to change my orientation. What "behavior" was I trying to change?

I have a gay (male) friend who married a woman when he was young in the hope that his orientation would "change." It didn't. The marriage lasted almost ten years. He wasn't and isn't straight. He did what he thought he had to do in this society to fulfill some sort of obligation. He regrets that he caused such pain to his ex-wife. So he is straight?

I have several friends who are Jesuit priests. They are celibate. They are also gay.

A young man in prison is only attracted to women. He has a girlfriend on the "outside." Inside, however, he is repeatedly abused by other men--virtually all of whom are attracted to women, not men. He finds an older, stronger guy to protect him. He is abused by that guy in exchange for the protection. You're telling me that young guy is gay?

Behavior and orientation really aren't the same thing.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I would agree that FormerDemocrat has an unusual interest in the subject of homosexuality. Reminds me of Larry Craig ("I am not a homosexual, I have never been a homosexual"), Reverends Haggard and Rekers. I have never known it NOT to be the case that the most vehement homophobes turn out to be gay.
Posted by: dnealesq | December 11, 2010
__________________________________________
Bingo -- my experience as well and I'm sure shared by others many times over! blasmaic seems to have the same "unusual interest" in the subject.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Can you name one example where gay people are required by law to use separate showers under these circumstances?

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

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

It's not a game, and I appreciate your examples.

However, the military requires by law that gays and lesbians use seperate facilities, facilities outside of the military that is. People are segregated on sex, but they are segregated like that because the sexes are sexually attracted to one another, at least that is what the selfish gene prefers.

"regardless of their own conduct" means everything.

Under DADT, provided a soldier doesn't reveal his or her same-sex orientation, a communication behavior, then he or she is permitted to use facilities for heterosexuals.

With private gyms, people can ask the rules before joining. With universities, students don't have a "right" to live in on-campus housing, but most universities offer wide options of housing styles too. Universities should not house openly gay students in two-person rooms. And most housing offices will re-assign room-mates for any incompatibilities that can't be worked through.

The military doesn't give people options on where to sleep, bathe, and dress. A condition of enlistment is an expecation that orders will be followed without question and that only legal orders will be issued.

Segregating the sexes clearly shows us that billeting soldiers without regard to their sexual attraction is wrong and illegal. Why else would sexes be segregated? Tradition? If tradition were a legitimate reason for policy then blacks, women, and gays would not be permitted to serve at all.

The military can't give a right to one group of soldiers that isn't granted to others.

Would the interaction between individuals in this video be permitted in a military with openly gay service?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5fxAqZlDQ

Or is the person depicted in the film an immoral, disgusting, and offensive person?

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic seems to have the same "unusual interest" in the subject.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

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

It never fails. Gays and lesbians will seek to silence criticism by any means possible.

I work pretty hard at not returning the hatred, seaduck2001. But your immaturity persuades me that gays should never be granted the right act openly gay in a military barracks.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"It never fails. Gays and lesbians will seek to silence criticism by any means possible."

I don't believe I do that. If I have, I have also apologized for rude behavior.

Please don't paint people with broad brushes. I can assure you that people opposed to equitable treatment of gay people have done more than their fair share of trying to silence criticism of them as well.

No "side" has the corner on poor debating habits.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic seems to have the same "unusual interest" in the subject.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

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

It never fails. Gays and lesbians will seek to silence criticism by any means possible.

I work pretty hard at not returning the hatred, seaduck2001. But your immaturity persuades me that gays should never be granted the right act openly gay in a military barracks.
_________________________________________

Oh,really? I've seen quite a bit of your vitriol. I'm a quite mature 62 year old, thank you very much.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Please don't paint people with broad brushes. I can assure you that people opposed to equitable treatment of gay people have done more than their fair share of trying to silence criticism of them as well.

No "side" has the corner on poor debating habits.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010
_________________________________________
ricklinguist, you're right on target yet again. After so very many years of being silenced by people opposed to equitable treatment of gays and lesbians, I fell into a poor debating technique. I should know better.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"However, the military requires by law that gays and lesbians use seperate facilities, facilities outside of the military that is."

I don't understand this. Please explain.

"People are segregated on sex, but they are segregated like that because the sexes are sexually attracted to one another..."

It's also a societal decision to do so.

After all, there are lots of tribal societies where nakedness is not frowned upon (my parents had a subscription to "National Geographic" so trust me on that. ;-)).

And even in traditional, conservative Japan, men and women bathed together. Entire families bathed together. Naked.

"Under DADT, provided a soldier doesn't reveal his or her same-sex orientation, a communication behavior, then he or she is permitted to use facilities for heterosexuals."

A “communication behavior”? Ok. ;-)

But in the rest of society, that “communication behavior” does not remove one's right to shower together. In fact, again, in schools where showering is communal, gay people would probably be kicked out if they tried to shower with those of the OPPOSITE sex.

Do you really think that's not the case?

You think that gay men can use the ladies' restroom in the "rest" of society...and get away with it?

"Tradition? If tradition were a legitimate reason for policy then blacks, women, and gays would not be permitted to serve at all."

Not sure what you mean. Yes, it's "tradition" in the sense that it's the cultural norm. It is not the cultural norm to segregate by sexual orientation.

"Or is the person depicted in the film an immoral, disgusting, and offensive person?"

With respect, I did not click on the link. I do appreciate your warning me that there's something disgusting going on in it. I am not about to click on that, thank you very much.

Individuals who do "disgusting things" should do them in private: not on YouTube videos. And not in public showers. I don't see the relevance of removing DADT to prohibiting people from doing "disgusting things" in public. Can heterosexuals do those "disgusting things" in public in the Military?

I still remember David S. urinating next to me in the shower in high school before swim class. He was straight. I was not. That wasn't relevant. His disgusting behavior was.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Were open homosexuality to be embraced by the armed forces there would be a mass exodus of the most critical components of our servicemen and women -- those closest to and in the front lines. This cadre of marines and infantry fighters; officers, NCO's and enlisted, the ones who carry the rifles and grenade launchers, are overwhelmingly opposed to such a change."

In 1992 when homosexuality was removed as a bar against service in the Australian Defence Force, the following year exit surveys indicated a total of two (2) service men's leaving the service was as a primary result of the ban being lifted.

Two (2).

I saw Shelton on The daily show respond to the argument that 'no other western country who lifted the ban suffered any appreciable negative result from doing so' by counter claiming 'yes, but the US DOD wins wars and other countries do not.'

That's not an argument.That's a logical fallacy.

Fact is gay men and women serve in Defence forces. They should not be forced to hide their sexuality to do so. To suggest otherwise is bigotry plain and simple and it has no place in a modern military service.

Time marches on people. Like flogging as punishment, standing picket duty, hazing, abuse of women service members, and a whole host of dated moronic practices, DADT meets the test of sensibility and it fails across the board.

The only reason DADT remains is because a hard core nub of bigotry is fostered and encouraged on the conservative side of US politics where they see contrarin obstinance to the march of progress as a positive quality to be embraced and celebrated. In effect reveling in their ignorance.

Same sex preferred men and women, like African Americans before them, should not suffer at the hands of such people. To suggest they do so is both Un-American and inhuman.

Posted by: Mikey6 | December 11, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Behavior and orientation really aren't the same thing.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

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

Sexual orientation is a description of sexual behavior, and sexual behavior by some in areas where other soldiers sleep, bathe, and dress is a violation of privacy.

To the extent that orientation is not behavior, it is not a problem. But just as females have the right to privacy from all males regardless of behavior, males have a right to privacy from all gays regardless of conduct.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Oh,really? I've seen quite a bit of your vitriol. I'm a quite mature 62 year old, thank you very much.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 11, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

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

seaduck2001, disclosing that your age is 62 helps prove my point. It's not a debating thing, either. It's about people.

If DADT is lifted, then it will be gays and lesbians who are hard-core activists that will populate the ranks. They won't dare get near the radical homophobes -- they fear violence and have had a lot of experience with it.

The people who will be on the receiving end of their hatred and extreme bullying will be the social moderates -- those who don't care that much or who have other priorities in life.

America can't stop that from happening in social settings, but we mustn't allow it to enter places where soldiers sleep, bathe, and dress. Gays can't be given a legal right to invade the privacy of heterosexuals and then act with extreme immaturity.

Congress should not re-instate "droit de siegneur" in North America.

Hey look, your dirty trick didn't make me stop.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Sexual orientation is a description of sexual behavior..."Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 5:29 PM |

And yet I posted a number of instances where clearly it is NOT the same thing. It would help if you addressed the examples and showed me how I am mistaken.

If not, with respect, you've simply ignored the evidence because it doesn't fit your statement.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I agree that orientation includes even more than behavior. It includes desire and capacity.

If a male is pining for another male then he should not be in places where heterosexual males sleep, bathe, and dress. It matters not what he actually does for the purposes of morality. It matters what he desires. If you want a man for sexual or romantic purposes, then you can't sleep, bathe, and dress in areas with heterosexual men.

Orientation covers more than behavior, and that's where we began with this. My orientation as a heterosexual male will assure that it's a violation of the law for me to use a woman's locker room. For the same reason, it is a violaiton of the same law for a lesbian to use a woman's locker room.

Gays and lesbians are often afforded an "indulgence" for the fact that the world doesn't properly organize itself. They should not be persecuted simply because there aren't funds to build private living and changing areas for everyone. Likewise though, we can't trample the rights of others and grant gays and lesbians the legal right to view the naked bodies of those to whom they can be romantically or sexually attracted.

We must have a compromise like DADT to make things as fair as possible for all.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 11, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"We must have a compromise like DADT to make things as fair as possible for all."

Some compromise: kicking out soldiers who are minding their own business.

How great a deal would you consider it if YOU were the one being kicked out of a job because other people said they didn't want you to be around them? I personally would find it completely unacceptable, and I'd do my best to see to it that YOU kept your job.

That's essentially why I am writing these posts: whether it's you or gay service members who are being treated unreasonably, it's still wrong.

No, my friend, a fair compromise is the following: Remove DADT.

Make service dependent upon behavior --for ALL.

If a service member, gay or straight, minds his own business and simply showers, which, after all, is what seems to be at the heart of your concern, then all will be as it is now.


And no one will be kicked out for no good reason.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

There are a huge number of people who have the right and the obligation to view others naked without regard to anyones attraction. They include doctors, firemen, nurses, prison guards, ambulance workers, social workers (under certain circumstances), coaches/trainers in school, college and professional sports if the object chooses to engage in sports, tsas, morticians, medical examiners, police for criminals and sometimes victims, and random passerbys during medical emergencies. Your fear of gays is both childish and irrational. They are everywhere so get over it.

Posted by: Jack74 | December 11, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

This whole repeal thing is by leftists for themselves and their homosexual pals. It is not for America, as a whole. It is solely for the Obamanation, period.

Everything about this big push for repeal is an illusion put forth by the Democrat media and is merely propaganda.

When the dead ducks are gone, the whole thing will go up in a cloud of pink smoke. That's because the liberal illusionists will lose all their power of suggestion.

DADT is Bill Clinton's masterpiece of bi-partisan compromise. It works very well.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 12, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

seaduck2001, disclosing that your age is 62 helps prove my point. It's not a debating thing, either. It's about people.

If DADT is lifted, then it will be gays and lesbians who are hard-core activists that will populate the ranks. They won't dare get near the radical homophobes -- they fear violence and have had a lot of experience with it.

The people who will be on the receiving end of their hatred and extreme bullying will be the social moderates -- those who don't care that much or who have other priorities in life.

America can't stop that from happening in social settings, but we mustn't allow it to enter places where soldiers sleep, bathe, and dress. Gays can't be given a legal right to invade the privacy of heterosexuals and then act with extreme immaturity.

Congress should not re-instate "droit de siegneur" in North America.

Hey look, your dirty trick didn't make me stop.
________________________________________
I don't follow this at all. You stated earlier that "I work pretty hard at not returning the hatred, seaduck2001." What on earth is my "dirty trick"? Whatever, I've said this before and I'll say it again. (If it helps you to understand further where I'm coming from, I'm a 62 year old aunt and great-aunt many times over and have nephews serving in the military.) They and their friends in the military totally support the repeal of DADT. They see it as a complete non-issue. I'm very proud of them for choosing to serve their country and, I assure you, they are mature way beyond their years.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | December 12, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse


If a service member, gay or straight, minds his own business and simply showers, which, after all, is what seems to be at the heart of your concern, then all will be as it is now.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 11, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

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

Well I've said a few times that respect for privacy is my central concern. It's odd to me that proponents of repeal attack me most enegetically but my objection is the least homophobic.

Some others don't want gays wearing the military uniform of America or working within 100 miles of where they work or eating in the same cafeteria that they use or any number of other really harsh and outlandish things. I just care about the rights of individuals.

I want heterosexual soldiers to retain the right to shield their bodies from people who can become sexually or romantically attracted to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5fxAqZlDQ

Here's the link to the video clip on YouTube that you refused to watch. It contains no nudity and no adult language. Notice how at the beginning of clip, a guy moves away with just a fierce look too. If DADT is repealed, will scenes like the one depicted in this hollywood feature film be prohibited?

DADT requires that a gay soldier minds "his own business and simply showers." Repeal of DADT grants a soldier the right to act and behave as a gay man wherever he goes, by himself or with other gay men.

A right is something you can do regardless of how others feel about it. Rights empower offensive and even highly offensive conduct. We should always remember that granting a right grants the power to act offensively and without consideration of others.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 12, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"...Repeal of DADT grants a soldier the right to act and behave as a gay man wherever he goes, by himself or with other gay men."

No, with respect, that is simply not the case.

What does "behave as a gay man" mean? Do you truly think it includes having sex in public or on base, or harassing others, gay or straight?

DADT is about STATUS. Behavior, by heterosexuals OR homosexuals, is still regulated and should be.

Removing DADT is independent --entirely so-- from harrassment, sexual activity on base, and the thousands of other rules which governed behavior of both straight AND gay service members long DADT was proposed.

They will still apply after DADT is lifted.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 12, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

What does "behave as a gay man" mean? Do you truly think it includes having sex in public or on base, or harassing others, gay or straight?

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 12, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

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

No, I didn't say anything about sex in public places. And actually I don't much care what gays do where it doesn't encroach on another soldier's rights.

I don't like it when gays leave used condoms in the toilet stalls of public restrooms, but if a person needs to use the toilet then they will use the toilet. Some peope actually fly into Oakland because it is closer to their work than San Francisco, not because they hate gays.

I believe a heterosexual soldier has a right to sleep, bathe, and dress in areas that are secured away from those who can become sexually attracted to him or her.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5fxAqZlDQ

A soldier should not have stop his shower because a gay soldier has made a romantic overture toward him.

Remember that when someone has a right to do something, then he or she has the power to do it regardless of whether it offends others. If the military is going to give gays and lesbians the right to be open with their sexuality, then it must secure them away from places where heterosexuals sleep, bathe, and dress.

Everyone has rights, even heterosexual men.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 12, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"...A soldier should not have stop his shower because a gay soldier has made a romantic overture toward him..."

Agreed.

I am gay. Were I in the Military, I should not have to leave a shower because a SOLDIER has made a romantic overture toward me. This isn't about gay or straight or DADT. You object to a certain behavior in public.

Guess what? So do I, and so would most GAY soldiers, I suspect.

I should also not have to leave the MILITARY because someone ELSE made a romantic overture toward me.

That's the problem. DADT isn't about romantic advances in showers. That's obnoxious, and will continue to be cause for disciplinary action after DADT is lifted.

Let me add one important point: Your focus is on showers. I find that odd. Romantic advances aren't based on whether someone else is NAKED or not.

Romantic advances can take place anywhere, right now, even when people are fully clothed. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that MOST such advances take place when people are fully clothed. (And most, obviously, are fully clothed heterosexual men toward fully clothed women.)

Nakedness isn't a prerequisite. It's highly unlikely to occur in a crowded shower. (I'd say impossible, but I can't prove that.)

So there you have it. It isn't about showers or nakedness. It isn't about being gay.

It's about BEHAVIOR. And there's absolutely no reason to kick out ALL gay soldiers when only a FEW soldiers, both gay and straight, break behavioral rules.

The only thing that will change once DADT is lifted is that those gay soldiers who are minding their own business and following the rules will not be subject to discharge any more than their straight counterparts are now.

And that's the way it should be.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 13, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic: "I don't like it when gays leave used condoms in the toilet stalls of public restrooms"

How do you know that someone gay has left the condom? On second thought, don't tell us.

The video you reference says more about you than anything you've written about gay men.

You are preoccupied with fantasies about other men and situations from your imagination.

Your screwed-up ideas about exercising a right and confusion about what DADT means and does:

"military is going to give gays and lesbians the right to be open with their sexuality"

shows you would be the soldier in need of education and counselling with repeal of DADT.

Your problem is understood in the repeal plan. People like you will have to be screened and eliminated during recruitment, or, if serving, discharged due to obsessive preoccupations about sexual fantasies.

In civilian life, no sports team has the problems you list with toilets, showers or sleeping accommodations. Nor does any team expect or ask for segregated facilities.

People are in control of their lives. You need professional help.

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 13, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

P.S. The right to carry a gun, open or concealed, in shopping malls, bars and churches does give gun lovers the right to use it, or harass other people with it, or commit crimes.

Get professional help.

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 13, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Nor does the right to have religious beliefs give 'chistians' the right to decide when 'thou shalt not kill' will govern their behavior in the military. Nor does it permit them to harass, recruit or convert others they serve with.

When relied on as motivation in combat or police functions in an occupied country, zealous, 'christian' soldiers ARE often exposed and reassigned from combat zones and occupied countries.

Military service is highly disciplined. It's not for everyone.

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 13, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic is hilarious. Amid a debate in which his fellow opponents of repealing DADT constantly rant that gays have no rights, he's hypocritically discovered all sorts of rights that he thinks heterosexuals possess. Typical bigot.

Of course, while opponents of repeal also lecture gays and lesbians about how military service requires sacrifice, blasmaic apparently believes that delicate straight men must be protected from any sacrifice.

Lastly, his argument collapses of its own weight, as gay men and lesbians are already in the military, in all the situations he complains about.

If it works for the Canadian military, the British military, and the Israeli military, American soldiers can deal with it too.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 13, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

It's about BEHAVIOR. And there's absolutely no reason to kick out ALL gay soldiers when only a FEW soldiers, both gay and straight, break behavioral rules.

The only thing that will change once DADT is lifted is that those gay soldiers who are minding their own business and following the rules will not be subject to discharge any more than their straight counterparts are now.

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 13, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

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

Regardless of how well I behave as a heterosexual male, I cannot use women's locker rooms or restrooms. Why? Because people have a right to have their privacy protected from those who can become sexually attracted to them, regardless of behavior.

There may be some people who believe gays and lesbians have no right to be within 100 miles of them. I simply believe gays and lesbians have no right to be where heterosexuals sleep, bathe, and dress. Yet I seem to catch more energetic opposition than people who hate gays and lesbians.

Do you realize that yesterday a 62 year-old female felt justified in ridiculing my sexuality as a means of silencing my viewpoint? I might expect that from a 20-something female or a 30-something gay man, but never from a 62 year-old of either sex or any orientation.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

There goes blasmaic again, pretending that straight soldiers are dripping with rights, while gays and lesbians have none. Straight soldiers obviously and can't be expected to endure even the slightest disruption, because they could possibly be expected to make any sacrifice. Do they also have a "right" to deploy with their favorite stuffed animal that their mommy gave them? How about a pacifier to suckle?

If it works for the Canadian military, the British military, and the Israeli military, American soldiers can deal with it too.

And, frankly, if it works in high school locker rooms, in health club locker rooms, and in TSA pat downs, American soldiers can deal with it too.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 13, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

By repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell which as you call it is:
“policy that threatens national security and robs it of talent”

The backlash amongst troops will cause a certain number to leave the service also robbing it of talent probably in about the same numbers, perhaps by even larger numbers.


You also state that “65,000 continue to serve in silence” Since there are no gays serving openly in the military this number is an arbitrary number pulled from thin air. This way over estimates the number of gays serving.

Your article also points to “Activists want the president to declare DADT unconstitutional” You fail to remind readers that it is not the presidents call as to whether a law is unconstitutional or not, that is reserved for the Supreme Court of the United States.

While there are places within the military where gays could serve, there are also places where the rights of the rest of the troops would be undeservedly diminished.

We keep female and male military members separate for pretty obvious reasons, one of which is to safeguard against sexual promiscuity and misconduct. What protections will be put in place to maintain similar safeguards regarding such homosexual activities?

Posted by: robinTX54 | December 13, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

With a grandfather and father who were career military, and a husband who is retired military, I have listened to this debate with great interest. There is a certain perspective that I think has been lacking with regard to gay and lesbian soldiers being treated differently under DADT. As a military family member, I was never hidden from the colleagues of these men, and I benefitted as a spouse when separation due to training or war occured -- I had the support of the other military spouses who were going through the same thing of juggling life without my loved one, and worrying for his safety. I also knew that, if anything happened, there would be an extensive support system to get me through tough times, even if they included the injury or death of my husband. As things stand, the significant other of a gay or lesbian service member is left without such support. Being unknown, they will not be in the call bank that unit spouses have to keep each other informed; they will not be part of activities that help build relationships that foster support. Heterosexual service members head off to war or wherever, know that they aren't leaving their families completely on their own. There is a positive psychological component to that. The loved one of a gay or lesbian soldier will be left out in the cold. This is a huge difference that gay and lesbian soldiers have to endure under DADT. Let's not pretend that they aren't being treated very differently.

Posted by: tansymoth | December 13, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Gee, robinTX54, somehow high school and college locker rooms manage to function without DADT.

Please explain how it is that heterosexual soldiers have a "right to privacy" in the military.

If it works for the Canadian military, the British military, and the Israeli military, American soldiers can deal with it too.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 13, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

If it works for the Canadian military, the British military, and the Israeli military, American soldiers can deal with it too.

And, frankly, if it works in high school locker rooms, in health club locker rooms, and in TSA pat downs, American soldiers can deal with it too.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 13, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

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

You truly believe that everything non-American is better than America. I disagree.

I appreciate your clarifying the TSA pat-down issue for me. That has to be the most immoral, unethical, and absolutely disgusting thing about the TSA. Gay and lesbian screeners can get their thrills by touching the bodies of same-sex passengers and the passengers can do nothing about it. How appalling.

And as for school and university shower rooms, there's no requirement that anyone attend public school or that they live in university housing. In the military, they tell you where to sleep, bathe, and dress, and heterosexuals never sleep, bathe, or dress in the same areas as the opposite sex.

Absent their sexual conduct, I am beginning to believe that there is no more immoral, unethical, unprofessional, and immature group of people in the world than gays and lesbians. Who else claims a right to view, touch, and inspect the bodies of strangers to whom they can become sexually attracted?

Gays and lesbian soldiers have no right to be in areas where same-sex soldiers sleep, bathe, and dress.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

blasmaic: "I don't like it when gays leave used condoms in the toilet stalls of public restrooms"

How do you know that someone gay has left the condom? On second thought, don't tell us.

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 13, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

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

I know the used condom was left there by gay men because women are not permitted in male public restrooms.

Women aren't permitted in areas where men sleep, bathe, and dress because heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Gays and lesbians should not be permitted in areas where same-sex soldiers sleep, bathe, and dress.

I accept that gays can't control who they fall in love with. That's another reason why they can't be where same-sex soldiers sleep, bathe, and dress.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Repeal of DADT is only a matter of time. Anyone in the military who doesn't think they can serve with gay and/or lesbian soldiers is welcome to resign, and will no doubt be easily replaced with an American who will gladly defend the rights of all of it's citizens.
BTW, I am a retired Vet, and yes I have been in combat. I know I have served along side several gays and lesbians- they were not the trouble makers. A noted above the trouble makers were heterosexual men who thought they were "G@D's gift" to women. I am much more concerned that recruiters are overlooking the felony records of some recruits. I agree with Barry Goldwater's statement that it's about shooting straight, not being straight.

Posted by: 10bestfan | December 13, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The video you reference says more about you than anything you've written about gay men.

You are preoccupied with fantasies about other men and situations from your imagination.


Posted by: ldfrmc | December 13, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5fxAqZlDQ

The video contains no nudity or bad language. It's just this dialogue:

"Hey, anyone get to you yet?

"Hey, we all need friends in here. I could be a friend to you."

Would these words be permissible with the repeal of DADT? Why would this conduct be inappropriate for soldiers in the shower room or where they sleep and dress?

I would suggest others scenarios which they feel might be possible with the repeal of DADT. Remember, a right is something you can excercize regardless of how others feel. We're talking about giving gays and lesbians the right to be who they are in the military.

Obviously, from the way I've been attacked, we can all see that supporters of repeal of DADT have every intention of acting offensively once the right of gays to be who they are is granted.

I've seen gay men and lesbian act intetionally offensive before -- it's not that shocking or amusing. I'm not saying they can't have a gay pride themed day in the cafeteria. I'm just saying gays and lesbians can't sleep, bathe, or dress in the same areas with same-sex soldiers.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"I know the used condom was left there by gay men because women are not permitted in male public restrooms."

As disgusting as this example is, your reliance on it demonstrates the flaw in the rest of your argument. It is not only prohibited for women to be in many men's restrooms, it is much more prohibited for anyone to have sex in a public bathroom. Even in unisex bathrooms, this is prohibited. It is even prohibited in most places outside of bathrooms. But the prohibited thing is the behavior, not the "inclination" or whatever you want to call it. I always thought that the separate restroom thing was more about anatomy, myself.

And to answer your question, the behavior shown in your clip is absolutely not allowable in the military or in any other setting I can think of. Do you realize that people are disciplined pretty severely in the military for even having meetings one-on-one behind a closed door? You can go to the navy times website and read all about the ten or so COs who have been fired for fraternization in the past few years. Fraternization means just that on many cases: closed-door meetings or a few too many social encounters with a subordinate. The idea that the scene you posted would happen and be allowed is ridiculous, quite frankly. Hold everyone to the same standards and let them do their job. Punish anyone who steps out of line as harshly as possible, and get on with the business of killing bad guys.

Posted by: Neuroadkill | December 13, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Neuroadkill,

"I always thought that the separate restroom thing was more about anatomy, myself."

How does anatomy require seperation of the sexes? I use a toilet whenever a urinal is not available. No problem.

The question was how I knew that gay men had left the used condom in the toilet stall in Oakland, California, just across the bay from San Francisco. It must have been gay men because women aren't permitted in mens rooms.

I should add that the used condom was left atop the toilet paper dispenser, so when it came into focus it was quite near my face. Yikes! Here's a picture of the type of toilet paper dispenser, so you can get the picture.

http://www.newtondistributing.com/panel/fotoprod/b-4288.gif

It was disgusting, and the only reason I flew into Oakland was because it was nearer to my final destination. I don't hate San Francisco airport because a lot of gay people live in the city. And I haven't like other men's semen near me since my college girlfriend brought some home with her.


"And to answer your question, the behavior shown in your clip is absolutely not allowable in the military or in any other setting I can think of."

Why is it illegal for men to talk about friendship in the shower room? And there were plenty of other people around in the clip as you know. It wasn't just two men behind locked doors. In fact, the third man shown in the scene was already a friend of the man talking. So what if the man talking is gay? Being gay won't be illegal after DADT is repealed.

You see, there really is a right to privacy that must be respected. Heterosexuals don't sleep, bathe, or dress in the same areas as the opposite sex. Gays cannot control who they fall in love with, I accept that. That, and out of respect for the privacy of others, gays and lesbians should not sleep, bathe, or dress in areas where same-sex people are billeted.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Regardless of how well I behave as a heterosexual male, I cannot use women's locker rooms or restrooms. Why?" Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 10:03 AM |

Regardless of how well I behave as a gay male, I cannot use women's locker rooms or restrooms. Why?

In fact, I've been pointing this out for days. Gay people, like straight people, are REQUIRED to use the facilities for their gender--men use men's facilities, women use women's facilities.

That includes all types of gay people, from the stereotypes some on here like to point to the many who don't fit those stereotypes.


It's because our society socializes us by gender, NOT by sexual orientation.

The Military is no different.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of how well I behave as a gay male, I cannot use women's locker rooms or restrooms. Why?

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

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

Our society organizes us by sexual orientation, with the presumption that everyone is heterosexual.

Because people are sorted on sex with a heterosexuality presumption, it becomes neccesary to call homosexuality a choice, a sin, and whatever else.

That of course is wrong. Gays cannot control who they are or who they fall in love with.

However no male is permitted in female areas because all males are presumed to be heterosexual and therefore it would be a violation of the womens' privacy. For the same reason, females who are or believe themselves to be lesbians aren't permitted in male areas.

There is also a factor of attraction to the male or female who is gay or lesbian. Simply because a person is same-sex attracted does not mean that their bodies will be undesirable to heterosexuals of the opposite sex. We can't have naked women in the heterosexual male areas or naked men in the heterosexual female areas.

Gays and lesbians just cannot be in areas where heterosexuals sleep, bathe, and dress.

Maybe some bold, courageous federal judge will decree that the military must provide private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each soldier. A judge can demand it. Halliburton can build it. Congress can add it to its deficit.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 13, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"However no male is permitted in female areas because all males are presumed to be heterosexual..."


Well, that's not a very accurate assumption, is it?

I don't presume it. I doubt that most people in the Military presume it. We know that there are gay people throughout society.

You don't think we shower? ;-)

With respect, throughout society, gays are fully integrated into it along with others of their sex. That includes openly gay high school students, openly gay college students, openly gay gym rats, you name it.

We don't segregate by sexual orientation.

Here's something you may not appreciate: I don't want people leering at ME in the shower. I am gay. When I used to go to the gym (it's been awhile, alas), I showered. Period. That's what showers are for.

Had anyone used it for any other purpose --including, as I mentioned earlier, that heterosexual kid I went to high school with who urinated in the shower-- they need to be kicked out, disciplined so that those who are simply showering --regardless of sexual orientation-- can do so in peace.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | December 13, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't dispute that the presumption of universal heterosexuality is inaccurate.

Its existence though means that men and women are sex segregated because of sexual orientation, not anatomy as you assert. What anatomical differences exist between the sexes that would preclude their using the same facilities for sleeping, bathing, and dressing? None that I know of. Yet we still sex-segregate.

When facilities do not involve personal privacy, there is no sex segregation. Men and women ride the same public transportation, use the same eating areas, the same lecture halls, and sit in the same pews. Why are these things not segregated on anatomy if anatomy is the reason we sex segregate? If this sounds absurd, please remember that it is your logic driving the absurdity. The shower head doesn't discriminate between male and female anatomy, yet we have sex-segregated shower rooms.

You say we sex-segregate on anatomy. But we never sex-segregate on anatomy when privacy from desiring eyes is not an issue.

I say we sex-segregate on orientation, with an inaccurate assumption of universal heterosexuality. Consequently, gays and lesbians cannot serve openly if they are billeted with heterosexual soldiers. But everyone deserves tolerance, so I have objection to a policy of don't-ask-don't-tell. I know its wrong to require perfect behavior of gays when some heterosexuals behave offensively, but we can't have gays acting offensively where straights sleep, bathe, and dress.

What's needed is a bold, courageous federal judge to decree that the military will provide private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each soldier and recruit. Where this isn't possible, such as in forward areas, then gays and lesbians cannot serve openly.

How you go from open service to DADT is unknown to me. I know a man can swear on a stack of bibles that he's a queer but the women won't permit him in their shower room. But that's an issue of truthfulness about one's sexual orientation, not anatomy.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 14, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I was unwilling to read ALL the posts. I wonder why senators don't just stress discrimination as blacks used to be discriminated against. Now they're allowed in the military, and they don't have to hide that they're black.

Gays shouldn't have to hide that they're gay. Blacks never had a DADT ban. Are they any more American than gays? Blacks had their color inborn. Gays had their sexuality inborn, as has been psychologically determined. They pay taxes and are subject to the same traffic rules. Why are they any less American?

Posted by: ericidle666 | December 14, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Such long winded comments from homosexuals that have no understanding of our military, its unit cohesiveness, moral codes, and basic function. It has historically been understood that deviant behavior such as homosexuality is destructive to our military. Until 1993, this was the rule and law. NO GAYS IN THE MILITARY, PERIOD. Now we have anarchist gay advocates inside destroying our countries military from the inside out. This homo-opinionist has no knowledge of what he is speaking. Neither do any of you homo-activists commenting here. You are a mere 3% of society, yet you bring 100% of the trouble.

Posted by: boscovegas | December 16, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Also, when did being a homosexual become a 'racial issue'? Being gay is not being black, brown, yellow, green, or the dreaded white. You CHOOSE to behave against the natural code of existence. You CHOOSE to lay with the person of the same sexual birth. One cannot choose the race he was born to. OOPS, my bad. If you are a halfrican-American, as with Hussein, you can choose to ignore the dreaded 'white' half, and claim to be slavery descendants, or black farmers, or what ever gives you the most political clout to attack the 234 years of history that was once a great nation.

Posted by: boscovegas | December 16, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company