Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:38 PM ET, 12/ 5/2010

Repeal of don't ask, don't tell: 'If not now, when?'

By Jonathan Capehart

Gay rights activists and others who want Congress to repeal the abhorrent, discriminatory and "un-American" ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military are fretting over the waning lame-duck calendar. So I propose an easy solution: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should keep the chamber in session until the shame that is "don't ask, don't tell" is overturned. Reid has many good reasons to do so, among them: If Congress doesn't repeal the ban, the courts will. It's just a matter of time.

The blunt warnings and pleas to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could not have been clearer. Failure to legislate repeal would leave the military at the mercy of the courts, which recently ruled that the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly is unconstitutional and ordered the government to stop enforcement.

What's at stake? The care that went into the Pentagon report released last week, the planning for the transition to a fully inclusive military and the discretion of the defense secretary to get it done -- all could be rendered moot. Those sanctimonious senators who bloviated about their concern for harming the troops during a time of war could themselves harm the troops during a time of war by preventing Gates from implementing the plan the Pentagon spent nearly a year devising.

As an African American, I have no problem with the courts stepping in to tell people to act right, as they did during the civil rights movement. But judges shouldn't have to get involved if the Senate does its job. With Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) all signaling that they'd support repeal, the votes are there for Congress to make judicial intervention unnecessary. That's why Reid must keep the Senate in session until its members have had a chance to make history.

Recently I cited one of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s favorite quotations: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The issue of don't ask don't tell is one of those rare times when our leaders could, with one vote, bend that moral arc to make history and achieve justice at once.

Reid needs to make sure both that the negotiations with Collins and other fair-thinking Republicans succeed in ensuring an open and fair debate and that the debate and the vote take place before the Senate leaves the Capitol -- no matter when that might be. If Reid can get the vote done before Christmas, great. If not, he and his 99 colleagues better hunker down for a Capitol Christmas. The vote to repeal don't ask, don't tell is too important to leave to the next Congress or to the courts. As Gates said last week, "If not now, when?"

By Jonathan Capehart  | December 5, 2010; 9:38 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: Teach for America -- let's do the numbers
Next: What Michelle Rhee is doing next

Comments

The same group of Senator trying to block any vote, would be the first group to re-spin this issue later as "activist judges" legislating from the bench.

That just does not fly anymore.

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 6, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

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

Huuummmm 3 OR MAYBE 4 TO FIGHT wars, and yet DADT IS STILL THERE??????

SEND THE XTIANS INSTEAD NOW ( THE TERM XTIANS ALSO APPLIES TO ANY RELIGIOUS EXTREMISMS )

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by: shaiarra | December 6, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU'LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTIOUSNESS DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,...GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS...THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD

Posted by: shaiarra | December 6, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMANE NOR A TERRORIST... ( RELIGIOUS EXTREMES ARE DANGEROUS TO ALL, FOR EXAMPLE:. TALIBAN/ WESTBORO CHURCH/ AFRICAN AND SOME ASIAN XTIANS MURDERING CHILDREN AS WITCHES AND SAME SEXERS ie BATTY BOY SPEECH WHICH IS PUSHING A FOREIGN DEADLY CUSTOMS AND LAWS FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY IN THE US IS TREASON

( SEE THE US OATH OF ALLEGIANCE , WHICH SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AS A TERRORISTIC ACT AGAINST US CITIZENS)

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

Posted by: shaiarra | December 6, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

DO XTIANS BOMB CLINICS etc? DO XTIANS SEND TERRORIST LETTERS TO THE US GOVERNMENT??? DO XTIANS ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON SAME SEXERS??? DID THE CHURCH START SLAVERY IN THE US AND EUROPE??? DO XTIANS QUOTE FROM A BOOK (BIBLE) THAT ENDORCES GENOCIDE?/ SLAVERY AND CHILD MARRIAGES TO ADULTS??? POLYGAMY??? INCEST??, A MAN IS ALLOWED TO SALE HIS WIFE AND KIDS INTO SLAVERY TO PAY OFF HIS DEBTS..STONEING TO DEATH DISOBIDIENT KIDS(CHILD
ABUSE)...GOOGLE: BIBLE RAPE LAWS ,the shock of whats it says about RAPE OMG....THE SONG OF SOLOMON (INCEST/PORNO ).....SOME FAMILY VALUE HUH, RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMANE PERIOD, HUMANE CIVILITY, NOT EXTREMISM WHICH ALWAYS ENDS IN INHUMANE PUNISHMENT.

* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU'LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTIOUSNESS DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,...GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS...THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD


WARNING: ALERT LEVEL CAT-5 Evangelical Thought Police or E.T.P. Virus detected – Administer Anti-Mind Programming Counter Measures. Clearing Sequence to begin in 1,2,3,………..Clearing Complete – E.T.P. Virus Removed.
Clear and present danger

Posted by: shaiarra | December 6, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what is un-American.
Pushing your sexual preference on me, like it should give you some kind of rights.
That is thee most asinine stance our post WWII culture has taken.

Mark my words, if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, it will be the beginning of the end for America. Decline of the Western Civilization, Part III. The U-S of A will be wiped off the map within 100 years.

The fact Capehart quotes MLK to stand up for gay rights, shows his ignorance. If you choose to be gay, fine. And let's be clear, it is a choice. I understand that some are predisposed, for whatever reason, to be attracted to the same sex. But it is obviously unnatural and against the ways of the natural world. What does a union of two homosexuals produce? Nothing!!! So choose to fight the predisposition. Justice has nothing to do with gays openly serving in the military. What does an individual's sexual preference have to do with protecting the country? Nothing!!! Just another attempt by the uber liberals to destroy our country and the Constitution...which they love to quote and misinterpret. How grievous!

Posted by: post345 | December 6, 2010 5:16 AM | Report abuse

Capehart's attitude goes a long way to explaining why the Democrats just got shellacked. With all the problems that the country faces, not to mention the fact we're at war, the big priority is this?!?

Don't you think that for most people passing a budget, clarifying the tax rates and extending unemployment benefits just might be a wee bit more important for Congress to tackle right now?

Posted by: bbface21 | December 6, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

The sham Pentagon study, pushed through so fast and so cleverly, cannot stand on its own as a valid or objective study, by the government's own rules and objective standards as mandated under United States federal law.

DontAskDontTellREPORT.blogspot.com seems to provide federal study proof of this using a simple side-by-side comparison guide to quickly compare the Pentagon study to other similar government studies. A LIST of what's MISSING in the Pentagon study becomes immediately and distressingly apparent in the comparison.

The government requires a much more objective study for studying disruption to America's animals and wildlife, the report argues, than what the government actually required for studying disruption to its own troops in the Pentagon study. It seems what is NOT in the Pentagon study was lost in the two days everyone had to study what was IN that 256 page government report!

There's a current frenzy going on now to push this issue through the lame-duck Senate now no matter what – using the so called "results" of the Pentagon study to support this push. Even our Senators can't seem to know how to evaluate how good a study is on their own. What 's missing in the Pentagon study or what a real objective study would show is not even open for discussion. We may never know unless we support McCain's demand for a thorough and complete study here. We've been duped!

Posted by: richsaco | December 6, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

The sham Pentagon study, pushed through so fast and so cleverly, cannot stand on its own as a valid or objective study, by the government's own rules and objective standards as mandated under United States federal law.

DontAskDontTellREPORT.blogspot.com seems to provide federal study proof of this using a simple side-by-side comparison guide to quickly compare the Pentagon study to other similar government studies. A LIST of what's MISSING in the Pentagon study becomes immediately and distressingly apparent in the comparison.

The government requires a much more objective study for studying disruption to America's animals and wildlife, the report argues, than what the government actually required for studying disruption to its own troops in the Pentagon study. It seems what is NOT in the Pentagon study was lost in the two days everyone had to study what was IN that 256 page government report!

There's a current frenzy going on now to push this issue through the lame-duck Senate now no matter what – using the so called "results" of the Pentagon study to support this push. Even our Senators can't seem to know how to evaluate how good a study is on their own. What 's missing in the Pentagon study or what a real objective study would show is not even open for discussion. We may never know unless we support McCain's demand for a thorough and complete study here. We've been duped!

Posted by: richsaco | December 6, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

The sham Pentagon study, pushed through so fast and so cleverly, cannot stand on its own as a valid or objective study, by the government's own rules and objective standards as mandated under United States federal law.

DontAskDontTellREPORT.blogspot.com seems to provide federal study proof of this using a simple side-by-side comparison guide to quickly compare the Pentagon study to other similar government studies. A LIST of what's MISSING in the Pentagon study becomes immediately and distressingly apparent in the comparison.

The government requires a much more objective study for studying disruption to America's animals and wildlife, the report argues, than what the government actually required for studying disruption to its own troops in the Pentagon study. It seems what is NOT in the Pentagon study was lost in the two days everyone had to study what was IN that 256 page government report!

There's a current frenzy going on now to push this issue through the lame-duck Senate now no matter what – using the so called "results" of the Pentagon study to support this push. Even our Senators can't seem to know how to evaluate how good a study is on their own. What 's missing in the Pentagon study or what a real objective study would show is not even open for discussion. We may never know unless we support McCain's demand for a thorough and complete study here. We've been duped!

Posted by: richsaco | December 6, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

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

It allows persons with severe, sexual, disorientation disorders to serve America without hauling their disruptive, homosexual baggage along with them.

What could be better than that?

The only people who have had trouble with DADT are those radical, homosexual activists who just couldn't help but flaunt their homosexuality openly.

Besides, there's really something unAmerican about "gay" soldiers.

Are they going to go around "gayily" killing the enemy? How would that work??

Do they do it with silly grins on their faces??

It's bizarro world time here.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 6, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

"I'll tell you what is un-American.
Pushing your sexual preference on me, like it should give you some kind of rights."

I agree. Pushing your heterosexual preference on gay people, like it gives you some rights they don't have, is completely un-American. Why should you being heterosexual give you the right to serve in the military, while gays being homosexual does not give them the right to serve?

Posted by: wvanpup | December 6, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

None of these indignant spokesmen for the homosexual community -- I don't see anything particularly 'gay' about it -- care about the people this issue really effects -- the men in a foxhole under fire on enemy ground.

The reason to not have homosexuals in combat units is a matter of biology and morale.

It is very difficult to suppress the pheromones of a 19-year-old. Relationships will inevitably form. And then morale suffers -- does the sergeant who is having an affair with a PFC not send that man out on a dangerous patrol because of his lover? Or, the opposite -- to prove he can be even-handed. But even suspicions can affect the morale of men in the terrible conditions of combat, where the slightest mistake can cost lives. Suppose you think someone is eyeing you in the shower. It's hard enough being away from your wife or girlfriend without worrying about another man is enjoying the view.

A combat unit is not an office or a store, where people can practice their private lives away from the workplace. These men are together 24 hours a day, 60 minutes an hour. And it is not worth the additional stress of worrying about matters other than the enemy.

It's an ill-advised experiment that could ruin the finest combat units on the planet. And some, especially Marines -- the best shock troops in the history of the world -- will quit.

You can't have a blind person on lookout ... you can't have a one-legged man in a ground unit ... you can't have gays in units at close quarters in conditions where life is the final price of the experiment.

But this means nothing to the liberals that want to tinker with the reality of men under fire. Hell, they don't have to do it.

Posted by: JPMcC | December 6, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

it's totally un- american to discriminate against people because of who they're attracted to.denying rights to people who have a different sexual preference than you is like discriminating against people of different faiths. you chose your own faith did you not.the bible describes eating pork and shellfish and women wearing mens clothing as abominations but many christians eat away and the females do look good in jeans{my opinion}. the constitution says that all men are created equal i don't remember an except after that.look inside yourself and see why you dislike gays. irrational animus is bigotry and shouldn't have any place in determining ones rights.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 6, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

If not now, when?

JANUARY!

Too many elected officials sitting Congress have already been VOTED OUT OFFICE. They no longer represent the will the people. (Remember the will of the people? It used to be big before the will of public employee unions took over)

I support the rights of gays to serve in the military, get married or do any other stupid things the rest of do.

I do not support a last gasp effort by a defeated party to exert their will on the people that voted them out of office.

Posted by: TECWRITE | December 6, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

If homosexuality is "normed" will any dissent be labeled "hate-speech"?

Gen Pete Pace- an excellent officer and patriot- had his career ended when he said he felt homosexual relations were immoral.

Is it possible that careers will be held hostage to appropriate attitudes toward homosexuality?

Clearly, there is already a double standard when it comes to anti-Christian expression vs anti-Muslim expression that is independent of the Muslim's well known violence toward free expression of critiques of Islam.

Statistically, about one in 5 homosexual men will contract AIDS during their lives. Will the VA be obligated to operate AIDS clinics?

This is a tough question. Clearly, there is no rational basis for depriving homosexuals of civil rights. But, despite current rhetorical admonitions, homosexual, particularly, male homosexual behavior is dysfunctional. Even absent AIDS, it is a disease vector.

Bradley Manning's homosexuality seems to have been the motivation for his treason. It receives no mention in the press. Is this a new taboo? Was he given clearences despite his orientation, due to the same kind of political correctness that ignored Maj. Nidhal's Jihadism?

Posted by: mercedesmans2000 | December 6, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Wow, it is clear most of you posters are veterans of a bygone era. As a newly minted veteran, having gays in the military is a bit of a norm. People know about them, and most everyone doesn't care. Nobody wants to deal with anyone else's personal sex life flaunted in front of them (gay or straight) so why is this still an issue? There is a reason the survey results said what they did--a generational shift has definitely occurred within the military. To all you dinosaurs--the change is coming whether you like it or not.

Posted by: cjl10schic | December 6, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

It's a fact that homosexual men want to have "sex" with other men. This is not normal in any sense of the word normal. It is sexual deviancy. It is a severe form of sexual disorientation.

Normal men are naturally repelled by this bizarre behavior. It's creepy and weird.

The Catholic priesthood has suffered catastrophic consequences by allowing homosexuals to enter it's church with no restrictions. Little boys were dropping like flies and the church is paying out millions in reparations for their ruined lives.

Our military forces are too precious to allow them to become another homosexual enclave. DADT is a generous compromise. It should be preserved, at any cost.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 6, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

It must be done NOW because the half of the country represented by Republicans is about to get a voice. Quick, quick, before the Dems lose any more power!

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | December 6, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

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

Who exactly does it work very well for? Certainly not for the service member who just got discharged because it was uncovered he lived in a one bedroom apartment with another man. Not for the Command that is short personnel in a critical specialty since there are no replacements in the pipeline and they just had to discharge the one they had because he was gay. Certainly not for the overworked personnel specialist who now has to work longer hours to get his priority work done, and do the paperwork to process out a gay soldier. Certainly not for the solders at an Afghan outpost whose 0-3 Commander is stressing about his relationship back home that is falling apart but unlike his straight comrades-in-arms can't talk about his personal problems for fear of being discharged. Not for the Chief Petty Officer who goes home every night to an empty apartment and drinks his loneliness away because he can't afford to risk his pension.

So who is this working very well for? The military who trains people at substantial costs then has to discharge them? The individuals whose lives can be forever labeled by a system that recognizes they exist, but wants them to lie so a minority of others can feel comfortable? Using people for their talents and simultaneously forcing them to live in the shadows is not the hallmark of a society that thinks it will stand for generations to come.

For a military that prides itself on honor and integrity, this policy of making service members lie seems more of an attack on the values that make the Armed Services great, than allowing members of the all-volunteer force be who they are.

Posted by: The_Rat | December 6, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Jonathan Capehart;

Do you feel strongly enough about this issue to identify yourself, in two respects:

1. Have you served in the armed forces ?

2. Are you Gay or Straight ?

We that read your un-ending demands for repeal of DADT could place a value on your STANDING.

Sincerely

A veteran straight male who is very interested in "from whence you speak"

Posted by: lavellemh | December 6, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

lavellemh,
I served in the armed forced, I'm straight and I feel that DADT should be overturned.

Heck, I also served with guys who I knew were gay and the truth is, nobody gave a rat's a$$ about it. If the guy next you you did his job and is willing to stand his ground, we didn't care if they wanted to screw women, men or sheep.

And for the people who think everyone will quit, heck, the Israelis allow for gays to serve in all areas and people didn't resign 'in mass' -- few, if any, left. And the other countries are the same.

Posted by: MadiganT | December 6, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I can envision a scenario in which DADT would be ended immediately. Let us imagine that we get involved in yet another, even more terrible war, say in North Korea or Iran. Suppose large numbers of our volunteer military decided that they had had enough and wanted out. All they would have to do is announce that they are Gay and wanted an immediate discharge. Congress certainly would repeal DADT under those circumstances. Of course, it should not have to come to that. DADT truly is antithetical to American values. It should be repealed immediately.

Posted by: clacina | December 6, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

MadiganT,

Thanks for your service. You, as any of the 2.2 million service members are entitled to their INDIVIDUAL opinions on this very important subject.

I've read all of the posted comments on this page, and others, and it's fairly obvious as to who leans which way.

Your opinions appear genuine. Many may feel as you do. For sure many feel differently.

Jonathan Capehart's answer won't trump yours, or mine. I seek his STANDING, since he is the cheerleader at the Post for the repeal of DADT. I've read disingenious columns before. I've read obviously slanted rants before. I've seen JC champion both of these traits. I'd hazard a guess to the answers of Service and Gay-or-Straight, but I'd like to hear it from him. He does after all own this thread.

I will be amazed if Jonathan responds.

Posted by: lavellemh | December 6, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Why do our young men and women in the military have to lie about who they are?
I am so frustrated with the prejudice that still exists in our country. For the life of me I don't understand why President Obama does not put in any compromise with the Republicans regarding tax cuts to the wealthy: 1. Extend the unemployment benefits to the unemployed. 2. The signing of The Start Treaty. 3. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. All three of these should be included, not just the unemployment extension. That's like giving billions of dollars to the Republicans and accepting a dime in return. When is our president going to learn what compromise means? He has his turn to show some strength, but seems to be caving in again!!!!

Posted by: livenpeace | December 6, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

livenpeace; all,

may i take a shot at answering that series of questions?

the reason is: BHO is an ignorant, arrogant, "not particuliarly bright" (we elected the wrong Obama = Michelle has the brains in the family; BHO only has the mouth & it's big/constantly open wide.), simpering, self-important, grossly underqualified, pitifully weak, scripted reader of teleprompters, who couldn't lead two drunk sailors into a tavern.

to all: if you did not serve in the forces and/or are not "currently serving", you "have no dog in this fight" & you should "butt out" & "go tend your potatos".
(if you haven't lived in an open bay barracks/tent/hooch/trench/foxhole with other service members, you have no clue of just how little privacy there is and/or just how detrimental to discipline/readiness/unit cohesiveness/morale having "openly serving" homosexuals in that environment would be.)

to any parents, who may be reading this post: if you had a 17-20YO daughter in the armed forces, would you want her to be forced to share living/dressing/bathing/toilet facilities with hetrosexual men of that same age? - fyi, it's precisely the same problem with homosexuals sharing quarters with hetrosexuals of either gender.

fwiw, despite the "knowing, intentional lies", which are being spread about "gay rights" by "gay advocacy groups", there is NO "civil rights violation" in barring public homosexual BEHAVIOR from the armed forces, any more than there is anything barring public sexual acts by hetrosexuals in the military.
(fyi, "public displays of affection" are prohibited among hetrosexual couples, under the UCMJ.)

sincerely, Retired MP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | December 6, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT A HOMOSEXUAL WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"- CAN NOT SHOW WHERE OR HOW THAT PERSON GOT HIS/HER "ORIENTATION"! THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS, AND MANY OF THESE "ORIENTATIONS"(DESIRES) ARE AGAINST OUR LAWS!
SOME HAVE THE DESIRE TO ROB BANKS,MOLEST CHILDREN,HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS,OR MARRY A FAMILY MEMBER, AND WE DISCRIMINATE AND SAY, "NO,OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T ALLOW THAT!"
BUT THE HOMOSEXUALS (A 2 OR 3% OF OUR POPULATION) HAVE PUSHED AND CLAMORED FOR OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR DISGUSTING, DISEASE SPREADING SEXUAL ACTS-TO THE POINT THAT OUR MAJOR LEADERS, COURTS, AND NOW OUR ELITE MILITARY ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THESE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS!
BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON THE ATTEMPTS TO CURE, OR AT LEAST SLOW DOWN THE AIDS HOLOCAUST.
TELL THE TRUTH- SODOMY IS WHAT IT IS- AN UN-NATURAL SEXUAL ACT AND A SIN!

Posted by: lyn3 | December 6, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Before homosexuality is accepted as an 'equal' lifestyle, I would like to see its emotional, mental and physical costs in line with the rest of the population. Between HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis a/b/c, the human papilloma virus (HPV), and anal cancer among others, the physical costs are high.

A few other facts about homosexuals in the military. If infected with HIV/AIDS, the individual is placed in a non-deployed status ; someone else still has to go which means the manpower count has to be higher to offset infected personnel. The HIV/AIDS infected person will then receive 'lifetime' treatment for their disease. This is a budget buster for the military.

Additionally, a General/Admiral level officer is the investigator for homosexual/straight issues that arise if open homosexuality becomes law for the military. This means that a division level officer is the resolver of these issues. Homosexual incidents will flood these officers and politically they will have to look the other way. A platoon commander will not resolve an issue, nor a company commander, not a battalion commander, not a regimental commander - a division commander will resolve it. A division commander oversees up to 15,000 troops. If 2% of the troops were complaining, that would be 300 incidents for this General to decide. And this is in just one division.

Considering there are over 332 pro-gay, politically active lobbying organizations, the actual number of cases to investigate would flood the officer. The only way this officer's career continues is if he ignores the problems in the ranks. Anyone who's served in the military knows that platoon level issues have to be solved at that level. Once they're passed up 5 levels, the political hand-writing is on the wall.

Posted by: striderrt | December 7, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

A few thoughts:

Democratic representative Steny Hoyer equated African-Americans in the Civil Rights Act and disabled persons in the Americans With Disabilities Act to homosexuals. Equating physical ethnicity and physical disabilities to behavioral same-sex attraction? No, African-Americans and the disabled do not equate themselves to homosexuals.

The military is not an equal opportunity employer as in the civilian world. You don't equally want the weak, etc., unless your purpose is to have a weak military. You don't house attractive opposites together unless you want sexual problems. You want the tough, the fighters.

I had a gay professor in university put his arm around my shoulder and rub my chest with his other hand in front of non-gay profs in the department area. What was I going to do - punch him out? Should have. What is an enlisted man/woman going to do when a higher ranking same sex person does this in the military? Should they have to put up with this? No, but they won't be heard.

Posted by: striderrt | December 7, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

striderrt - keep on keepin on. Your comments would be impossible to dispute.

Jonathan Capehart - Are you going to weigh in on any of this thread - that you initiated ???

You admonish all who will listen to free the Lesbians and Gays now serving, and those that may choose to serve in the future, to "just be themselves, declare their natural proclivities and practice them".

With your freedom as a civilian and your seeming knowledge of "life in the service" show us how you would lead by example;

Have you served in the armed forces ???

and,

Are you proud enough of your own nature to declare yourself Straight or Gay ???

Ill wager everyone following this topic would be interested in your reply.

Posted by: lavellemh | December 7, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Wvanpup, My point is this...defending the country is not a social experiment. It is defending the country. And they do have the right to serve, just keep your sexual preference to yourself and do your job. If you don't like it, become a civilian.

Blinwilly, first of all the Bible does not say eating pork or shellfish is an abomination. That section of the Bible is talking about clean eating and relates specifically to the Jews of the era before Christ (BC).

Second, you're doing the same thing as Wvanpup. Why try to make a statement about gay rights and relate it to the defense of the country? This may further your cause, but can only be self defeating as it deeply offends those of us who hold to the moral traditions that founded this country and have held it together this long.

I have never discriminated against a gay person in my life, but now you want to say, "Look at me, look at me, I'm gay, I'm proud, and I'm in your face." If that's the way it's going to be then fine, I will clearly state that I'm offended by your intolerance of my opinion and cherished religious views. And if you're going to try and quote the Bible, don't forget about the verses that call homosexuality an abomination. God does love the world, and he desires that none should perish. But if you refuse to come to God on his terms, you will not find him.

Also, it is the Declaration of Independence that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, nor the US Constitution does it mention the right of anyone's sexual preference affording them certain rights or privileges.

I have examined myself. I do not hate anyone but terrorists. Them I hate. I hate the behavior of homosexuals who flaunt their sexual preference, and insist that I acknowledge and accept it. I do not and I will not.

What gays do behind closed doors is their business, but I am offended by their behavior and refusal to acknowledge my rights to have my own opinion.

In my opinion, the only reason the new generation of servicemen and servicewomen may not have a problem with gays serving openly, is they have been brainwashed throughout their childhoods that homosexuality is okay and even good. When in fact, it is aberrant behavior and not good. One more time, a sexual union of two homosexuals produces what?

Posted by: post345 | December 8, 2010 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart,

Are you scanning your "comment thread" to see how things are progressing, or have you forgotten that you were calling for the Congress, Sen. Joe Liberalman and all like-minded lemings to upend the way of life for 2.2 million serving troops.

The scare tactic about activist judges over-turning DADT and it would be much better for Congress to "see to it" only stinks. We still have a Supreme Court and even with Obama's recent plants I'll take my chances that DADT will survive. Maybe even a modified version that recognizes Reality, Common Sense and the Majority's wishes.

All this so that a pitifully small percentage of moral decadants might come out of their closets and practice their disgusting lifestyles, to the detriment of the vast majority.

Get your President to confirm or deny his relationship with one Larry Sinclair, in the
back of a limo, with drugs and alcohol ...touring Chicago and having a "Gay old time". See if he'll make public his college transcripts and produce a Birth Certificate. A certificate of live birth won't get it. Any person applying for the top job in America would expect to show his bona fides, or explain their absence.

If he'll own up to it or deny it, with Larry Sinclair informed, I'll be the first to apologise to him.

If you'll own up to being Gay and never having served in the Armed Forces, I'll be the first to apologise to you.

You and the president began all this ..... you gentlemen could finish it, but let's start with you, eh ?!

Posted by: lavellemh | December 8, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart,

after today, my guess is: never. and that is "a good thing" for the armed services & SM.

sincerely, Retired MP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | December 10, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company