“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” an odious and indefensible policy of intentional and irrational discrimination whose repeal is supported by large majorities of voters, soldiers, and members of Congress, as well as the president / commander-in-chief and the leaders of the military itself, nevertheless remains the law of the land — likely for an indefinite period of time into the future, or until the courts strike it down, in which case opponents can again dodge the substance of the issue and make it all about “judicial activism” — because 1) Harry Reid is an idiot, and 2) “moderate” Republican “supporters” of repeal care more about stupid Beltway procedural games, ego battles and other such assorted bulls**t than securing civil rights for American soldiers in uniform who happen to love members of the same sex, and 3) Republican opponents will block any further attempt at passage because, uh, tax cuts are more important, or something, and 4) Harry Reid is an idiot.
Look, if you oppose repeal of DADT on principle, fine. I vehemently disagree, but I respect your opinion, no matter how wrong I feel it is. All I ask is that you state your stance forthrightly, that you “own” your opinion, or what some might call your bigotry. Own it, stand up for it, defend it. Fine. What I don’t respect is saying you “support” repeal, yet holding it hostage for procedural reasons in some sort of stupid game of legislative chicken. And yet also, with that having been said, God help Harry Reid if he could have gotten this thing passed with a few minor concessions to those procedural hostage-holders, yet decided to bull ahead because he wanted to make a political point, or because he’s an incompetent ass, or both. Every game of chicken has at least two players, after all, and they all deserve to rot for letting unrelated stupid nonsense decide the fate of this important issue.
UPDATE: But wait!!! Joementum to the rescue?!?
Pingback: Tweets that mention BREAKING: The United States Senate is a detestable pile of horse manure -- Topsy.com
I disagree with the sentiment that Reid should have aquiesced in this case, for the same reason I disagree with Obama’s tax compromise with the GOP. Sometimes compromise is necessary and I understand his arguments about the consequences, but sometimes its important to stand up for what is right. I wish the President had been more like Reid and told the GOP to take a walk for their “our way or the highway” obstructionist approach on important issues. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (who allready pay less than their fair share as it is) and DADT are both indefensible positions and the country should know EXACTLY who is supporting them.
DADT [is an] indefensible position[] and the country should know EXACTLY who is supporting [it].
Or we could, y’know, repeal it.
Personally I’d rather get the law off the books, than get GOP senators on record (again) as supporting it… which they can then spin however they want, because the truth doesn’t matter, only perception does. Blah, blah, blah. Talk is cheap. Laws are laws. I’d rather get rid of the law than have another good talking point about how bigoted Republicans are.
P.S. Does “stand[ing] up for what is right” include keeping control over the amendment process and calendaring the vote in the preferred way? It’s not like Reid and Collins were battling over some high principle here. The tax cut is a totally different can of worms, but I don’t see how your analysis applies to DADT at all.
I suppose there is merit to the argument that the things they are battling over are less important, but then, why not just say to hell with them, we are voting on this thing. Guess thats what Lieberman is pushing, wish more bills could be like that. Nice to see him doing something I can support for a change. Been awhile.
Meh. I’m agnostic on DADT, but if it’s all the things you say it is and repeal is as popular across the board as you claim, then why did the Dems
dodge the substance of the issuesit on their supermajorities for so long only to bring this up in a lame duck session now? Oh yeah, because, uh, Obamacare is more important, or something.Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (who allready pay less than their fair share as it is)
So what is their “fair share”?
And how is it fair that some people have to pay a higher percentage than others?
You can argue that the rich can afford to pay more, you can argue that the rich should pay more, but leave the word fair out of it.
Should rich people pay more for food? Pay more to see a movie? Pay more for gas?
By the way, homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior. There are lots of behaviors that you can engage in in civilian life but can’t in the military.
“why did the Dems…sit on their supermajorities for so long only to bring this up in a lame duck session now?”
The short answer is, because the military’s report didn’t come out until December 1, and if it had come out sooner, or if the Dems had acted before the report, the GOP certainly would have screamed either that the report was rushed and more time is needed (which they did anyway, *cough*McCain*cough*hypocriticalasshole*cough*) or that the Dems were jumping the gun, not respecting the military’s timetable, etc.
The long answer is, strategically, you may very well be correct. It was, after all, Obama who created the timetable for the report (I think/presume). But while this may be a reason to bash the Dems’ strategy / political acumen, it’s not really a substantive critique, especially given that every possible option they could have taken would, with 100% certainty, have been greeted by acrimonious cries of NOT FAIR!!! NOT PROPER PROCEDURE!!! YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!!! by the obstructionist Right, which is manifestly eager to talk about this issue in ANY way that allows them to oppose it without getting into the substance of the issue and risk coming off like crotchety bigots.
RE: Your first paragraph … gee, tell us how you really feel!
I do not think it’s trivial that a clear majority of combat troops voiced opposition to the repeal of DADT. The survey data clearly supports eliminating DADT for non-combat troops, and therefore I support that in principle, but the reality is that’s not a very solid line since troops rotate in and out of combat roles frequently (with the exception of female soldiers and such). This will have to be a phased approach that is handled carefully (e.g., rotating straight non-combat troops into combat roles but leaving behind fellow members of their squadron or brigade who are homosexual is probably a recipe for troop preparedness and morale disaster) — an instant, total repeal is exactly the kind of liberal-minded approach to policymaking that typically produces just as many harmful side effects as it intends to fix.
It’s also worth seconding gahrie’s comment by noting that many “straight” behaviors are not tolerated in the military, either. So long as you keep it in your pants while on the job, you can serve successfully in the military — gay or straight.
homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior
Gahrie, nothing pisses me off more than that falsehood. What you’re saying is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. I’m not going to go look up and quote the statute, but here’s the Wikipedia summary, which is factually accurate to the best of my understanding:
Notice the “or” before “engage in homosexual conduct.” Not only can they not have gay sex while in the military, they also can’t SELF-IDENTIFY as gay, or TALK about being gay, or TALK about gay relationships, which may or may not involve “homosexual conduct” in the sexual sense — and even if they do, think about it this way: when you show someone a picture of your wife or kids, or talk about your family, do you consider yourself to be discussing or acknowledging, ahem, “heterosexual conduct,” or do you think you’re just talking about, y’know, YOUR LIFE?!?
Bottom line, anyone who identifies as gay, anyone who talks about any aspect of their personal life that gives away that they’re gay, even if they’re a virgin (or, at least, are not presently engaged in any relationship or other sexual conduct while in the military) is subject to dismissal under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, simply for being gay and talking about it. It’s NOT just “homosexual conduct” that’s banned — it’s open, out-of-the-closet homosexuality.
Bottom line, you are just wrong. Please acknowledge that fact.
AML, I’ll add you to my comment above, asking you to acknowledge that you’re simply wrong in your last paragraph, since you’re parroting gahrie’s factually incorrect line. It’s just NOT TRUE. It’s not enough to “keep it in your pants.” By law, you have to NOT TALK ABOUT your personal life at all, to the extent that doing so would be an acknowledgment that you’re gay (imagine spending months/years of your life in the closest quarters imaginable with your fellow soldiers, and never being able to tell them about your wife and kids — that’s what DADT requires of gay servicemembers).
Yes, I’ll concede that the restriction on being able to acknowledge your homosexuality is unduly harsh. OTOH, when you sign up for the military, you are definitely signing away a bunch of freedoms and rights related to privacy and even agency / volition. In that environment, restricting one’s ability to openly discuss sexuality is hardly out of context for the environment.
Nice try, guys …
Who passed DADT into LAW ? Answer: Signed into law by Bill Clinton after it passed in a Congress with majority Dems in both House and Senate … so – if you’re going to call it out as partisan bigotry, have the honesty and honour to call it as it is – Democrats controlling WH, House, and Senate finally accepting the need/desirability to repeal Dem bigotry …
Yes, there is bigotry all around WH, House, and Senate – more than enough in any of the three areas … the Report on DADT that came out Dec 1 is the Dem’s fig-leaf for why they waited … if you are going to accept that, then, again, in fairness and honesty and honour, the GOP fig-leaf of “Let’s do that *after* we fix the economy” is just as valid (or invalid) …
My take – if Israel can handle gay folk in their Armed Forces, and if the UK can handle gay folk in their Armed Forces, how come the US can’t catch up to those two generally-respected militaries ?
(As a Hannukah present to Venerable Loy, I will ask the question – If it is kosher to have faygeleh mensch in the Israeli Defence Force, the US Armed Forces cannot handle that, too ? … (grin))
The short answer is, because the military’s report didn’t come out until December 1, and if it had come out sooner, or if the Dems had acted before the report, the GOP certainly would have screamed …
The long answer is, strategically, you may very well be correct.
The correct answer is, because repealing DADT is merely a theater piece for Dems to pander to their base and paint the Right as obstructionist bigots, as you did here.
“The correct answer is, because repealing DADT is merely a theater piece for Dems to pander to their base and paint the Right as obstructionist bigots, as you did here.”
Yeah, cause none of them ACTUALLY think that gays should be allowed to serve in the military. And the Right ARE being obstructionist bigots.
“Who passed DADT into LAW ? Answer: Signed into law by Bill Clinton after it passed in a Congress with majority Dems in both House and Senate … so – if you’re going to call it out as partisan bigotry, have the honesty and honour to call it as it is – Democrats controlling WH, House, and Senate finally accepting the need/desirability to repeal Dem bigotry …”
I realize critical thinking isn’t your strong suit Alasdair, but here’s some help.
DADT was passed into law as a compromise that would otherwise have meant any one who was gay even if they DIDN’T tell could be kicked out, and the military could make them tell by asking even if there was no good reason too. Shockingly enough attitudes towards gays in the military has changed over the years, and getting the compromise law in place was the most feasible option AT THAT TIME. Now, nearly, what 20 years later its time to take the next step, because the law isn’t even necessary in the first place.
Look, I know in “Alasdair-land” nothing ever changes, and all options are black or white, but here in the real world life is not that simple. Attitudes and acceptance change over time, laws can be improved to move towards the right solution.
I fully realize I am probably wasting my time trying to use common sense and logic on you, but I guess I’m an eternal optomist and hope that one day there might be a crack in that thick shell of ignorance surrounding you and a little bit of rationality will seep in and help you to become a better person. It’s a long shot, but hey, so are a lot of things we keep trying for anyway.
Ok, I’ll throw my two cents in. After talking a lot with my boyfriend, who’s been in the Army for 9 1/2 years now, I kind of come down on both sides on this issue. On the one hand, I think it’s ridiculous to burden gay service members with not being able to even hint at their sexual orientation. They can’t designate a same sex partner/spouse as next of kin, talk about their significant other, etc. I don’t really think that’s fair. On the other hand, my boyfriend has brought up some points that I hadn’t considered, such as the fact that some old barracks will have to be updated (such as putting doors on the stalls in the latrines), and the first time two men show up together at a dining out, there will undoubtedly be issues. What it boils down to is that you have to remember that many people in the military (particularly enlisted) come from different backgrounds than us. Brendan, you and I, as well as probably just about everyone who reads this blog, are well-educated and come from balanced backgrounds. Many in the military are from very conservative backgrounds, and many come from trouble homes. They are not going to be very accepting of openly serving homosexuals. Keep in mind that the Marines and the Army are the branches these people tend to go into more often, and they’re the branches with the strongest opposition to repealing DADT. I think it is something that will eventually disappear, but it will take time to do it well. Although, my boyfriend’s opinion was, “If I’m in combat with you, I don’t care if you’re straight or gay. I just care if you’re a good shot.”
“By the way, homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior. There are lots of behaviors that you can engage in in civilian life but can’t in the military.”
Why not? Why can’t Bob go home to his husband Steve? Why does that prevent Bob from being an effective soldier? (Hint: it doesn’t). Gays allready serve in the military, most of them, like most straight people, quite effectively. There was a case right here in Washington about a flight nurse who was well decorated and had been used FOR YEARS as a poster child for recruiting efforts. The only reason she got kicked out of the militarry is someone found out she was a lesbian. It never effected her readiness or her work (why should it?).
If a soldier, gay OR straigtht commits acts in the military that are detrimental then they should be punished, but despite what you may believe gahrie, gay men and women aren’t seething pots of hormones who will jump on anyone of the same sex given the opportunity and start humping away like your dog humps your leg. Most, the vast vast VAST majority just want to do their job and serve their country. This same old tired argument was used against blacks and women, and unsurprisingly the military has done quite well with both, and militaries around the world with gay servicemembers haven’t fallen apart.
There is no defensible reason that gays shouldn’t serve openly so long as they aren’t ACTUALLY engaging in poor conduct. If I were in the military the only straightness I’d want out of my fellow soldiers would be their aim with a gun.
“So what is their “fair share”?
And how is it fair that some people have to pay a higher percentage than others?”
They control more of the wealth in this country than they pay for in taxes. They can afford lawyers and lobbiests to build in special tax breaks for themselves, and have increased clout with congress, especially the GOP. They have a ceiling on Social Security taxes. Their compensation growth rate exceeds that of the middle and lower classes over the past 50 years.
“despite what you may believe…, gay men and women aren’t seething pots of hormones who will jump on anyone of the same sex given the opportunity and start humping away like your dog humps your leg.”
Unfortunately David, that’s what many in the military believe. Hence why I mentioned the doors on the latrine stalls. Is a gay person really gonna check someone else out while they’re taking a crap on the john? Of course not. But there are plenty of homophobes in the military right now that believe a gay person would, and that’s what needs to be fixed. The military needs to work on the attitudes of its members, not just policy.
David – when you are finished trying to project *you* *own* bigotries onto others, consider this …
Back at the time of DADT becoming law, one of my all-time-best TAs (teaching assistants) for Beginning Sailing was an openly-gay guy who just happened to work for the PD at UCLA … and as far as I know, none of the other male Instructors (including myself) nor the male students in the classes had any problems communally showering with him after class … (and, after Capsize Recovery in the Marina Channel, showers were a Very Sensible Precaution) …
He was initially in favour of Clinton’s election, partially based upon Clinton’s promise to do away with the practice of discharging gay service members … and he was very disappointed when the Congres and White House colluded to make DADT the law of the land … (I wasn’t at all surprised, but, then again, I knew enough of US history to know that a President integrated the US Armed Forces by actually being Presidential and signing the required Executive Order … and there was no way Clinton could be such a President) … as I recall, Senator Sam Nunn (D) led the opposition to anyone gay serving in the military … so DADT was born …
Back then, I already knew that, historically, pair-bonded males had been amongst the most effective fighting men … it wasn’t an issue for the UK or for the Israelis … it was costing how many 10s of millions of $ to discharge trained soldiers … the few folk I knew who had served in the military basically said “As long as a person serves unit cohesion and efficiency, doesn’t matter what they do in private” …
So, David, try as you will to project your bigotry on others, it doesn’t work with me …
Lisa #21 – the military knows what it did when they were integrated after July 26, 1948, when President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 … similar measures which dealt with actual geniune racism back then can be modified to deal with equivalent anti-gay-ism now … in the next Congress, if the GOP can get enough done to help start the US economy back on the road to recovery, even if the GOP puts forward and passes legislation to repeal DADT and to integrate the Armed Forces orientation-wise, I have *zero* confidence that Mr Obama will sign such legislation into law … he gains too much value from having the gay community as “victims of Republican bigotry” …
Oh I get it Al, so the Democrats are playing political games, but the GOP, gosh darn it they are just lookin out for the country.
Give me one good reason why they are voting against DADT repeal now. You can’t. There isn’t one. They are voting against it because they are bigots. It’s that simple.
Actually, technically DADT is a federal directive and not a public law. The public law still states that, if you’re homosexual, that’s grounds for discharge from the military. That law goes back to Truman I think. Minor point, but worth noting.
Okay, I’m skipping a bit, in reading AML @ #10. You are in the military you follow orders, you don’t get asked what the orders are; when the military integrated the soldiers were not asked, it was just done. That simply is not how a chain of command works. The military wouldn’t work if we asked soldiers if they wanted to take a heavily fortified bridge.
Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military has not caused any issues for any other militaries that have done so. There is no reason to suspect that it would cause any problems for the professionals serving in our armed forces. It simply doesn’t matter to this discussion if more or less than half our service men and women are bigots. They will get over it just like they got over it when we allowed blacks into the military and to serve in inter racial units.
If serving with an openly gay soldier is enough to mess up your “readiness” I question your abilities in general. Unless/until he starts hitting on you or harassing you (which can happen with straight soldiers too) it shouldn’t matter who he dates in his free time.
dcl, overall there’s nothing wrong with your logic necessarily, but to ignore the immediate ramifications of implementing such a sweeping policy change is terribly obtuse. You don’t think that of the 60% of combat soldiers who oppose ending DADT (who you label bigots), there wouldn’t be some who would quit, decide not to re-enlist, or otherwise cause headaches for their higher-ups? Is now really the time to test that thesis — when we are winding down in Iraq but still overstretched in Afghanistan and simmering in the Korean peninsula?
The liberal mindset’s attraction to “I will force this change down your throat, and you will like it!” policymaking is a head-scratcher, for sure. Lefties are always talking about how we need to use “soft” power to build coalitions and impel behavior changes from our global enemies and such, but when it comes to domestic policy, somehow compromising or time-phased implementation is not acceptable. Somehow we can’t be hard on Iran, but we must be hard on our “bigoted” military? WTF?!?
So we should continue injustice and bigotry because its inconvenient? When should we repeal DADT according to the Conservatives then Andrew? 10 years? 20? 30? Even though good men and women have been and are being kicked out now? Who want to and HAVE served their country faithfully? Performing admirably in positions that are necessary?
I’ll say it again, if a soldier is incapable of doing his or her duty because another soldier is gay but not doing ANYTHING to them otherwise, why should I trust that soldier to be able to perform other, more demanding duties?
Oh and btw, you ARE aware that this policy won’t just suddenly vanish when this is passed right? You DO remember that the military will be given ample time to implement the repeal? I mean its not like they are going to hold a giant gay pride parade at the Pentagon tommorow if it passes today.
restricting one’s ability to openly discuss sexuality
What. The. Fuck. IT’S NOT ABOUT DISCUSSING “SEXUALITY”!!! When I say “I have a wife, Becky, and two beautiful daughters,” I’m not discussing “sexuality.” Even if I mention that I love my wife, that she’s the love of my life, I’m still not discussing “sexuality,” still less “heterosexual behavior” or “heterosexual conduct.” I’m talking about MY LIFE, nothing more, nothing less. Why is this so hard to understand?! This policy doesn’t just ask gays to hide their “sexuality,” it asks them to LIVE A LIE, to hide THEIR LIVES.
Here’s an anecdote that explains one example of what I mean:
Did you get that? She has to HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF HER FAMILY from the people she’s serving alongside, entrusting with her life and death.
In America! America!!
Your blithely dismissive attitude of this situation, AML, as some sort of perhaps reasonably sacrificed freedom that people in the military just have to give up, is complete and utter bullshit from someone who should know better. And your piss-poor terminology (“sexuality”) suggests you haven’t thought about it very hard.
Lisa’s boyfriend’s points, on the other hand, I get. But I would say that the best (indeed probably the only) way to change those attitudes is to go forward with integration. The very same arguments could have been made, and no doubt were, against racially integrating the army — it’ll make people uncomfortable, it’ll cause dissension in the ranks, so we basically have to cater to the bigots even though we disagree with them — and yet integration was, of course, the right thing, the ONLY morally correct thing, to do. Same here. Attitudes will change when the facts on the grounds make them change, and no sooner. In the mean time, our military won’t fall apart at the seams because people are able to acknowledge that they’re gay. Will there be some issues here and there? Of course. And they’ll be dealt with. But they won’t bring the military to a grinding halt, and they’ll diminish with time, and we’ll be a far better country for having done the right thing now instead of later. And of course what’s crucial is to proceed responsibly toward integration via a controlled process, which is precisely what the administration is trying to do — and precisely what blockage of this bill may prevent, since the courts may very well then strike it down, leading to immediate and uncontrolled and potentially much more chaotic “repeal” by judicial fiat.
Just out of curiosity…would those of you in favor of repealing DADT be in favor of doing away with separate accomodations for men and women?
David #23 – how about cuz “It’s the Economy, Stoopid !” …
Or “It’s Unemployment, Stoopid !” …
Either is sufficient reason to *NOT* allow a vote on anything except for stuff related to a) Economy and b) Unemployment …
And, of course, how about, instead of putzing around trying to make cheap points with a small segment of the country, the Congress showed some common-sense and voted to NOT allow any taxes to increase until the Unemployment numbers are significantly better ?
Too complicated for *you*, davidkianissimus ?
Brendan #29 – “And of course what’s crucial is to proceed responsibly toward integration via a controlled process, which is precisely what the administration is trying to do “ …
Even Keith Olbermann would be embarrassed to trying to put *that* much spin on the First Occupant’s efforts to distract from the Economy and Unemployment … this Administration and Congress are simply following the pattern of Dems throughout the past few decades, by promising to bring identity groups “out of bondage and oppression” all the while making @%@# sure that that doesn’t actually happen … sure, the Dems talk a great line – and then they deliver bupkiss … or worse, as is shown here …
gahrie @ #30, please acknowledge that your earlier statement that “homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior” was and is factually incorrect. Thanks.
Alastair you are so full of bullshit I can smell it over here. Obama promised to repeal DADT. He is working to get that done. Blocking passage of this or any other bill because the economy is still struggling is not a defense because that’s 1) not why they are ding it and 2) not even logical. Exactly how is passing DADT preventing progress from being made on the economy. Or as my latest post points out, how is preventing aid to 9/11 first responders preventing progress from being made on the economy? Maybe you are too stupid t do more than one thing at a time, but I damn well expect our leaders to do it.
I realize that Brendan is loathe to ban people from the bog without good cause, but I hope he has recognized that the price for putting the idiocy of you and a couple of others has driven away more and more reasonable people from the comments section, and even people as stubborn as I am hoping for rational discussion are close to giving up.
So Alasdair, if your intent was to destroy the comment section on this blog, you are suceeding incredibly well.
I’d rather get the law off the books, than get GOP senators on record (again) as supporting it… which they can then spin however they want, because the truth doesn’t matter
ecommerce web development
Nope. It was your side who blurred the border between speech and action.
I realize that Brendan is loathe to ban people from the bog without good cause, but I hope he has recognized that the price for putting the idiocy of you and a couple of others has driven away more and more reasonable people from the comments section, and even people as stubborn as I am hoping for rational discussion are close to giving up.
I would love for an independent body to come along and analyze the comment section of this blog to determine who is most responsible for engaging in emotional, irrational personal attacks and comments.
Nope. It was your side who blurred the border between speech and action.
Huh? That doesn’t even make sense.
Here’s what you said: “By the way, homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior.”
That is NOT TRUE. This is not debatable. It is not an open question. You are simply WRONG. You must either admit that, or else you’re a liar. There’s no middle ground. Don’t give me some mealy-mouthed bullshit about how liberals are to blame for your own misstatement of the law. Admit that you were wrong, now, and then it will be possible to continue to discuss this issue with you in a reasonable fashion. Continue to hold fast to your untrue statement, and you’re no better than a troll.
P.S. Here’s the text of the statute, if that helps you see reason and reality. Key language:
There’s no “blurring” there. Again, you said: “homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior.” Unless you believe — and again, don’t give me some bullshit about what liberals believe; we’re talking about what YOU said; so again, unless YOU believe — that verbally self-identifying as gay is “homosexual behavior,” then your previous statement was flatly incorrect.
(And, of course, any reference to one’s family life — e.g., a man saying “I have a husband,” or “I love my husband Tom” or, when asked who’s the guy in the picture, “that’s my husband Tom” or “these are my adopted kids with my husband Tom” or whatever — would necessarily be “to the effect” of making clear that the speaker “is a homosexual or bisexual.” Hence the earlier-referenced lesbian soldier, in comment #29, who had to “hide the existence of her family” from her military leadership.)
So, one of the following things are true:
1) You were mistaken when you made your earlier comment (A forgivable offense! It’s okay to be wrong! I’m wrong all the time! Just acknowledge it and I’ll say nothing more on the subject!);
2) You think — not liberals think, not liberals blurred the line; YOU THINK — that a soldier “stat[ing] that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect” constitutes “homosexual behavior” (which is, obviously, an idiotic position to hold, completely collapsing and rendering meaningless the much-discussed distinction between “homosexual behavior” and “homosexuality”);
or (3) You’re a liar and a troll.
Which is it? There are no other possible answers.
P.S. If you’re wondering why I’m harping on this so much… it’s because it’s important. The line you trotted out, the notion that DADT only forbids (in essence, if we can be a little more explicit) gay sex — only requiring, in AML’s instructively crude formulation, that gay solders “keep it in your pants while on the job” — is a convenient lie that many conservatives tell themselves, in order to convince themselves that DADT isn’t really discrimination, it’s just a reasonable policy enforcing social order. After all, if that was truly ALL it said — hey, gay people, don’t have sex with your comrades in arms — it’d be pretty reasonable! It’s probably inappropriate for anyone to have sex in a combat zone or whatever, gay or straight, so that wouldn’t be discrimination at all. But THAT’S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, and to try to pretend otherwise is an affront to truth, and an insult to the many brave gay soldiers who have had to grapple with the awful reality of this policy that you’re mischaracterizing in order to soothe your conscience and ease the politics. DADT is a blatantly discriminatory and oppressive legal rule, one that requires our soldiers to live a lie and conceal the core of their personal lives from everyone around them, and to pretend that it’s vastly less oppressive than that — even when presented with proof to the contrary — is odious and indefensible. You need to acknowledge the reality of the law you’re defending, and then if you still want to defend it, fine, but defend it on the basis of reality, not fantasy.
P.P.S. And if you come back with, “ha ha but the law was passed by Democrats, zing,” without acknowledging that you were wrong in how you characterized it, my head my explode. Yes, Democrats passed it. Of course, social mores have changed since 1993, but I’m still not going to defend Dems for that. It was a bad law then, it’s a bad law now. But regardless, my opinion of the law isn’t what matters. It’s the fact of what the law says that matters. It says what it says. It doesn’t say what you claimed it says. So please acknowledge that. That’s all I ask.
Behavior is speech and speech is behavior according to the Left, Brendan.
But if It’ll make you feel better…Homosexuals may serve in the military as long as they do not engage in homosexual behavior OR DISCUSS THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
Happy Now?
So how about answering my question in comment #30?
Homosexuals may serve in the military as long as they do not engage in homosexual behavior OR DISCUSS THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
Happy now?
Absolutely not. Still wrong, still a lie. Fucking pay attention. Saying “I’m gay” (or words to that effect) does not necessarily mean discussing “homosexual behavior.” For one thing, you can be a virgin and self-identify as gay, which by itself proves that you’re wrong. But, more to the point, if someone asks a gay soldier, “who’s the guy in the picture,” and he says, “that’s my boyfriend” or “that’s my husband,” is he discussing “homosexual behavior”? No, of course not, not unless the distinction between “homosexual behavior” and “homosexuality” has no meaning whatsoever. It’s absolutely, patently absurd to claim that any verbal reference to being gay is a discussion of “homosexual behavior.”
Again, when I talk about Becky or Loyette or Loyacita, am I discussing “heterosexual behavior,” or am I talking about my life and my family? Obviously the latter, yet by having those discussions, I am using “words to the effect” of acknowledging that I’m straight. If a gay person does the same thing in reference to their family, they risk being discharged. This is not a hypothetical problem — again, see my comment #29, re: soldiers “hiding the existence of the family” from the service.
You have your head planted firmly up your ass on this one, gahrie. You remain completely and utterly wrong. IT IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL “BEHAVIOR.” IT IS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, PERIOD, END OF STORY.
I will not answer any other questions you have about this topic until you stop fucking lying.
P.S. Perhaps it would be instructive for you to explain how YOU, gahrie, (not liberals, YOU) define “homosexual behavior.”
I’m really having a hard time keeping up here, very busy at the office,
But AML, so your counter argument is basically that we cannot rely on or soldiers to act in a professional manner?
Like I said, we integrated the army, we didn’t ask, the soldiers that didn’t like it got over it.
I’m not saying this is a sunshine and puppies for all thing, but your counter argument is that some soldiers might quit because they are unprofessional bigots.
Like I said, where this has been done there have been no significant problems. I refuse to believe our military is less professional than Israeli’s or the UK’s etc. And if they are that is a problem we need to address.
From a chain of command standpoint, you make the order you don’t equivocate about it. And civilians are in charge of our military. They are good at equivocating, but the need to just give the order. From my understanding Obama likely has sufficient authority to give the order. Truman integrated the army with Exec order 9981. When he did that, there was much grossing and belly aching especially by the various commanders in the military. But they were professionals and they followed the orders they were given.
The mistake Obama is making here is that he is making too big of a deal out of the political procedure. Sign the order, if congress wants to stop you then they have to act. Which we’ve just seen is very difficult for them.
Obama needs to learn how to act like he is coming from a position of political strength even when he is not.
Anyone ever wonder why there are no open homosexuals playing in the NBA or NFL?
Brendan, I take issue with your assertion that it is “breaking news” that the US Senate is a detestable pile of horse manure. In my opinion, that basic fact is not, in fact, “breaking news” as it has been well known for at least 150 years.
Also, why can’t Obama simply copy Harry S Truman and issue an Executive order, as Truman did to desegregate the US Military in 1948? I’ve attached a link for your review below. I think Americans’ attitudes toward gays are significantly more tolerant than their views towards African Americans 60 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981
I define homosexual behavior as :
1) Engaging in a homosexual relationship.
2) Discussing homosexual behavior in a public setting
3) Making your homosexual sexual behavior your defining characteristic.
(note I don’t think heterosexuals should make their sexual behavior their defining characteristic or discuss it in a public setting either)
By the way…just like a broken clock, dcl is correct for once.
If repealing DADT is so important, Pres. Obama could do it today at the stroke of a pen.
didn’t read the comments very well…dcl beat me to the punch about 9981. I hate when that happens.
Gahrie, your definition is circular. You can’t define “homosexual behavior,” in part, as “publicly discussing homosexual behavior.” So part #2 of your definition is totally meaningless, except to perhaps say “publicly discussing conduct that fits into part #1,” which is how I’m going to interpret it. Part #3 is also relatively meaningless, since that refers to someone’s self-definition, rather than any outward actions. Perhaps you mean “behaving in a way that indicates you make your homosexual sexual behavior your defining characteristic,” but that’s so subjective that it’s, again, fairly meaningless. Which leaves us with Part #1:
Can we not talk around the issue, please? We need to be explicit, in both senses of that word. Do you mean engaging in gay sex, or are you speaking more broadly than that?
If you mean simply gay sex, then presumably “discussing homosexual behavior in a public setting” means “discussing gay sex in a public setting.” On the other hand, if by “relationship” you mean any conceivable form of romantic partnership between two homosexual individuals, regardless of whether (or how) they’re having sex — and regardless of whether you have any notion of their life in the bedroom, since they can, of course, discuss their “relationship,” broadly defined, without discussing sex, just as I’m not discussing sex when I talk about Becky being my wife, or even mention that we have kids (although it’s not much of a leap to conclude from my references to Loyette and Loyacita that we’ve, ahem, “engaged in heterosexual behavior” at least twice) — then presumably “discussing homosexual behavior in a public setting” would be vastly more expansive, and would include making any reference whatsoever to a husband/wife/partner, an ex-husband/wife/partner, adopted kids, etc. This is obviously a much broader definition than “discussing gay sex in a public setting,” and in my view, it’s a definition that pretty much collapses the distinction between “homosexual behavior” and “homosexuality,” with the rare exception of someone who identifies as gay but has never had ANY form of romantic relationship, even a non-consummated one, with a member of the same sex. (So basically, someone who’s very young, very unlucky in love, or a gay priest.)
To be clear, perhaps I should make a list of scenarios. Which of the following activities constitutes “homosexual behavior,” in your view?
1) Engaging in gay sex.
2) Being in a same-sex romantic relationship that is known to involve some form of sex (let’s not get into Bill Clinton stuff here; I think we all know what “sex” generally entails).
3) Being in a same-sex romantic relationship that is known to NOT involve sex.
4) Being in a same-sex romantic relationship whose sexual status (i.e., whether the people in the relationship are having sex) is unknown to the person making the assessment of whether the relationship constitutes “homosexual behavior.”
5) Talking publicly about gay sex.
6) Talking publicly about a same-sex relationship that is known NOT to involve sex.
7) Talking publicly about a same-sex relationship that is known (by the listener, perhaps from previous private conversations) to involve some form of sex, but NOT talking publicly about the sex — only talking publicly about non-sexual aspects of the relationship (e.g., “this is a picture of my husband/boyfriend”).
8) Same as #7, i.e., talking publicly about non-sexual aspects of a same-sex relationship, but in a scenario where the listener (the one making the assessment of whether this constitutes “homosexual behavior”) KNOWS NOTHING about what happens in the bedroom, because the sexual side of the relationship has never been discussed with the listener, publicly or privately.
9) Having an inclination toward homosexuality (e.g., an attraction toward the same sex), but not acting on it.
10) Talking publicly about one’s not-acted-upon inclination toward homosexuality.
11) Talking publicly about one’s inclination toward homosexuality without revealing whether it has ever been acted upon.
I would say #1 is obviously “homosexual behavior” by any definition, and you’ve made clear that you believe #5 is, as well. I assume we agree that #9, #10 and (perhaps) #3, #6 and #11 are not. The rest are murky. But for my part, I’d say that if you define #7 and especially #8 as “homosexual behavior,” then your definition of homosexual behavior is absurd, unreasonable, and completely collapses the distinction between “homosexual behavior” and “homosexuality” in almost all cases, leaving only the group I somewhat flippantly categorized earlier as “someone who’s very young, very unlucky in love, or a gay priest.” In reality, the “gay priest” part should be more expansive, encompassing anyone who chooses to be celibate, for any reason. But regardless, if you define (at most) #3, #6, #9, #10 and #11 as the ONLY things on my list which aren’t homosexual behavior, then what you’re saying is as follows:
Anyone with an inclination toward homosexuality who has ever acted upon that inclination is thereby engaging in “homosexual behavior,” not only when they are engaging in the sexual act at issue, not only when they publicly discuss that sexual act, not only when they spend time (non-sexually) with someone whom they have an ongoing sexual relationship with, but even when they publicly discuss the non-sexual aspects of their relationship with such a person.
I think that’s a pretty incredible, and ridiculous, definition of “homosexual behavior,” largely because I don’t view myself as engaging in “heterosexual behavior” each and every time I talk about Becky, or watch a football game with her, or cuddle on the couch, or go to the park with our kids. I think I’m just… living life, being a human being, spending time with my family. But if that’s your definition, fine…
…but you’re STILL WRONG. Because anyone who fits into category #6, #10 or #11 can still be discharged from the military.
G at 47, because it would cause a marketing problem for their agent given the degree to which football is marketed on machismo. The people they work with, I would guess, know.
Honestly I think we are making way too much of this sexual orientation thing. You function in a professional work environment or you don’t… end of story. Running around grabbing the asses of the women you work with is unacceptable behavior, running around grabbing the asses of men you work with is also unacceptable behavior. And I don’t think anyone has a problem with that point. Conduct your self professionally or get out.
G at 49, point 3 is self referential. I know quite a few people that are openly gay. In no case is homosexual behavior some sort of defining workplace characteristic. Seriously, your comment at 49 is basically entirely non-snesacal. It’s like saying you don’t want to work with women because they make being a woman a defining workplace characteristic of themselves. Which they don’t, but they are still a woman and you still know they are a woman–you argument is that because they are a woman and you know they are making it a defining characteristic? Honestly that is really just silly, and it’s all on you mate. It simply makes no sense, and is based on some sort of warped homophobia or something… I don’t know…
I work with and know quite a few people who are homosexual both male and female. And in no case has their sexual orientation had any operative impact on our ability to work together professionally or interact as friends. In simple fact the only people that I have known where sexual orientation has been operative in our relationship are the girls I’ve dated and the woman that I am married to. Beyond that it simply has not really mattered. If such things have mattered to you beyond that narrow context, I fear you have much bigger issues that cannot be dealt with in this forum.
(I just changed the numbers, because I thought of an additional category, so gahrie, if you have a reply already in the words, it may be garbled, for which I apologize.)
Addendum: I guess if the ONLY thing you exempt from your definition of “homosexual behavior” is #9 (and possibly #3), then you’re right about the law. But that’s also a wolf-face crazy definition. To claim it’s not “homosexual behavior” to have an not-acted-upon inclination to be gay, but that it IS “homosexual behavior” to merely talk about that inclination, in any “public” setting & in any context, while making clear it’s never been acted upon, is indefensible and nuts, and renders the word “behavior” totally meaningless.
Let me put it this way. If you say everything on my list, except #9, is “homosexual behavior,” then I retract my statement that you’re lying about the law, and replace it with the statement that your definition of “homosexual behavior” is utterly idiotic, makes no real-world logical sense, and collapses entirely the distinction between “behavior” and speech/expression. Note that YOU are collapsing that distinction, of your own volition — not “the Left,” YOU. It also, in my view, collapses any meaningful remnant of the distinction between “homosexuality” and “homosexual behavior,” since you aren’t merely demanding of gays that they refrain from sexual and even non-sexual conduct, but also that they refrain from any public self-expression of their inclinations, acted upon or not — which is to say that you’re basically asking them to exist in a sort of state of perpetual public denial about an aspect of their character — not “the defining characteristic,” necessarily, but certainly an important aspect that plays a role (not THE role, but A role) in all of our lives, namely who we are attracted to and what type of romance we’re drawn toward.
If, on the other hand, you include anything on my list, other than #9 or #3, as “homosexual behavior,” you’re still wrong about the law.
If I wanted to be really precise, I should probably also ask what’s your definition of “publicly.” Does late-night chit-chat in the barracks with the guys, let’s say 3 other guys, constitute “public” discussion? There’s a big difference between marching in a gay pride parade, or holding forth in a big gay speech about how fabulous! you feel, versus just talking about your life with a few other people.
Gahrie, I’ve called you and Alasdair out for your behavior and willingness to ignore facts, logic, and other arguments. If that is a personal attack then I suggest you get off the Internet. Calling you a bigot is a personal attack because you support DADT and think all Muslims are out to kill us IS. A personal attack, and it’s also true and relevant. Look up the definition. It fits. Also I’m going to call you a whiny hypocrite since you’ve demonstrated on numerous occasions that you are more than willing to do the same. Basically I gave up the high ground a long time back and started playing your game. It’s completely pathetic that you can dish it out but can’t take it. You have no moral high ground here, you were the one who set us on this path to begin with.
In short, stop whining.
Alasdair is even worse than yu when it comes to ignoring reality and making off topic personal slams, so not sure why you are defending him, other than he’s your right wing blood brother.
Honestly I think we are making way too much of this sexual orientation thing. You function in a professional work environment or you don’t… end of story
This is actually my personal view….in civilian life.
I have gay friends and relatives. I do not love them any less.
There is a reason why men and women have separate barracks…and it is for the same reason why openly gay service members would be a bad idea.
I believe that homosexuals can serve honorably. I know many have.
Brendan:
The only thing I would exempt from your list (as far as DADT is concerned) is indeed #9.
The military is simply a special case. It is simply hard to discuss this issue with people who have never served (or as in my case were raised in the military). You give up many rights while serving in the military in the interests of good order. There are many heterosexual behaviors that will get you kicked out of the military, and lots of speech that will get you kicked out.
H H Gwin #51 – don’t feel bad – it had already been referred to in comment #22 … (grin) …
David K #57 – you seem to have forgotten to take your dried frog pills for the day … and #58 – or possibly you’ve been off ’em for, what, a week ?
Bottom line (no pun intended) is that IF First Occupant Obama was presidential, he would have signed the updated version of Executive Order 9981 (that I referred to in comment #22) *before* jamming Obamacare through, before paying off his SEIU chums, before telling the Justice Department to be actively racist in its decisions on which voter intimidation cases to pursue …
Then again, if he was capable of being presidential, he wouldn’t be so thin-skinned and whiny (“It’s all Booosh’s fault !”) so much of the time …
Heck, if he signed such an Executive Order, you might even hear *me* say “This is the first time I’ve been proud of our Current Occupant of the White House since the end of January, 2009 !” …
Gahrie:
To claim that a gay virgin, making a verbal statement that he is gay, constitutes “homosexual behavior,” in any context, is patently ridiculous. Absolutely absurd. Crazy. Nuts. Totally indefensible, nonsensical bullshit. The word “behavior” has no meaning if you think that.
Mind you, I’m not saying (necessarily) that it’s absurd to believe that a gay virgin making such a statement should be grounds for dismissal. But even if it’s reasonable grounds for dismissal, it is NOT “homosexual behavior,” in ANY possible definition, in ANY context.
You can’t possibly believe that. You’re not that much of an idiot.
Let’s review your (revised) statement: “Homosexuals may serve in the military as long as they do not engage in homosexual behavior OR DISCUSS THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.”
So, to clarify, if a gay virgin were to make a statement indicating that he/she is gay (#10 on my list, which you said you wouldn’t exempt), is that gay virgin “engaging in homosexual behavior,” or “discussing their homosexual behavior”? If it’s the former, then YOU (not the Left, YOU) believe speech is “behavior.” If it’s the latter, then you believe that a homosexual inclination, not acted upon, is “homosexual behavior.”
Needless to say, in either case, your answer is indefensible.
You really need to drop the canard that this is about “behavior.” It’s not. It’s just not. It’s about behavior OR SPEECH that reveals one’s homosexuality.
What you should have said — what you actually believe, but don’t want to admit you believe — is: “Homosexuals may serve in the military as long as they are completely ‘in the closet,’ neither acting upon nor speaking about their homosexuality in any way. They must regulate not only their ‘behavior,’ but all forms of speech or expression that would reveal anything, to anyone, about their homosexual inclination, whether that inclination is acted upon or not.”
THAT is what you believe, as you’ve now made clear. And you’re entitled to that belief, which is entirely consistent with the current law. But it’s NOT what you originally said, nor the revised version thereof. You have to twist the logic and language into unrecognizable knots to pretend that what you said is accurate. IT’S NOT ABOUT “BEHAVIOR,” as you continue to falsely claim. That’s a total canard designed to make you, and other DADT defenders, feel better about your position. And it’s that canard that I’m trying to puncture here, and have successfully done. Now it’s time for you to admit that fact.
Again, I’m not asking you to change your position. All I’m asking is that you drop the canard, and be honest about what you’re asking gay soldiers to do, which goes well beyond regulating their “behavior,” and well beyond what any heterosexual would ever be asked to do with respect to their “behavior” or personal life.
This is not disputable. Give it up. Admit that it’s not about “behavior” and move on, and I’ll shut the Hell up.
I think a contributing factor in gahrie’s word choices and definition is that he’s not even sure whether homosexuality is a choice. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s why he continues to associate it with “behavior” and illogically frames it that way.
Perhaps, but remember, this all started with gahrie saying. “By the way, homosexuals can serve in the military. They just can’t engage in homosexual behavior. There are lots of behaviors that you can engage in in civilian life but can’t in the military.” So he clearly thinks there is some distinction between being “homosexual” and engaging in “homosexual behavior.” Yet, in order to defend the false notion that only the latter, and not the former, are impacted by DADT, he is now reduced to the absurdity of claiming that talking about a not-acted-upon homosexual inclination is “homosexual behavior” — despite having derided liberals, earlier in this very thread, for treating speech as behavior.
1) I do indeed believe that speaking about anything is a form of behavior, according to current law and custom. Speaking of one’s homosexuality has been codified as behavior by the military, one that will result in your dismissal from the service.
2) I am agnostic as to the “cause” of homosexuality. I think like most human behavior it is probably a combination of nurture and nature.
3) Regardless of your pedantic attacks on my language (something becoming distressingly common..lately you no longer engage me on the issues, but rather attack me on my language and ignore my points on the issue) I have made clear that I believe you can be homosexual without engaging in homosexual behavior.
@Alasdair
Yeah what was aobama thinking passing that massive health care reform that will save money and lives. Clearly it was only because unions told him to and not because it was the right thing to do.
And don’t try and pretend you and other Republicans wouldn’t raise holy hell if Obama ended DADT by fiat rather than letting congress do it. That’s just laughable.
Also, what is with this bullshit assertion that if Obama thinks something is important he should do it first? For one, unless you expect the President to do everything on day one and nothing else for four years, that’s not possible. Second you dismiss the stuff he did first as purely political anyway. Why should I believe you would behave different about anything a non Republican does? Nothing in your comment history gives me reason to beleve you would.
Actually, nothing in your history leads me to believe you will pay attention to the logic of what I have said. You’ll only see what you want to see and ignore anything that contradicts your warped, illogical worldview.
@gahrie – For what reason should gay people who can adequately (and in many cases admirably) perform their duties, and who do not engage in unwanted sexual advances towards fellow soldiers not be allowed to continue to serve? What possible problem do they actually cause by having a husband or saying “I’m gay”. Making someone uncomfortable? Too damn bad. If a soldier can’t work with someone he doesn’t like that’s pathetic. And FYI I guarantee you soldiers put up with fellow straight soldiers they don’t like already. If a soldier is so undisciplined that they can’t do their job because another soldier is gay, why should I expect them to be able to perform in ACTUAL stressful situations like combat?
For what reason should gay people who can adequately (and in many cases admirably) perform their duties, and who do not engage in unwanted sexual advances towards fellow soldiers not be allowed to continue to serve?
If you created a whole new set of accommodations for them, nothing. Otherwise, as I have said before, for exactly the same reason we have separate barracks for men and women.
Why should they need separate accommodations? This sounds a bit too much like ‘separate but equal’ to me. Right now there are gay men sharing barracks with straight men, so why should that change just because they would be allowed to admit to their orientation?
The separation of men and women is not simply about who would be attracted to whom. And if you knew the statistics on women being raped in the military, you wouldn’t buy into the idea that separate barracks in any way protect women from men in the military, so if your idea is that somehow allowing men and women to be openly gay would lead to them assaulting people of their own sex if they shared living accommodations with them, well, there is no reason to believe that separate barracks would protect anyone.
david #67 – permit me to offer you a concept that many reasonable people use on a regular basis …
When a person suggest that someone should follow through on his or her promises if it is within their power/ability, that is a helpful suggestion … when a person *doesn’t* follow through on his or her promises when it is within their power/ability, that person loses significant credibility …
So – in this case – DADT – Clinton lost credibility with me back in the first year of his first term, and continued to lose credibility thereon … when he was re-elected, he lost even more credibility … the First Occupant lost credibility on this in the first 100 days of his assuming His Throne … (and, yes, the imagery *is* intentional – Obama makes the putative imperial pretensions of Nixon look positively republican !) …
Since you are having so much difficulty understanding my words, let me put them in bold for you …
“Heck, if he signed such an Executive Order, you might even hear *me* say “This is the first time I’ve been proud of our Current Occupant of the White House since the end of January, 2009 !” …”
Those who sincerely wish DADT repealed avoid the emotional appeals most of the time … we tend to point out the economic harm caused by discharging well-trained, skilled members of the Armed Forces solely as a result of DADT … we tend to point out the strategic stupidity of discharging well-trained, skilled members of the Armed Forces solely as a result of DADT … we tend to point out the counter-productive PR results of discharging well-trained, skilled members of the Armed Forces solely as a result of DADT … we tend to point out the waste of talented eager people which takes place when well-educated, skilled members of the US citizenry are unable to serve proudly and openly solely as a result of DADT …
Personally, I attribute significantly less blame to the GOP as compared to the Dems on this for the following reasons …
1) The Dems brought DADT into LAW …
2) The GOP haven’t campaigned upon the repeal of DADT as a significant plank in their platform each election …
3) The Dems *have* campaigned upon the repeal of DADT as a significant plank in their platform each election … and, each time, subsequently, have arrogantly and cynically failed to deliver, even when it has been within their authority/power to do so and the GOP could not have prevented it even if they had wanted to …
4) And after each such arrogant and cynical failure to do so, one of their major excuses is that the Republicans wouldn’t let ’em … even though the GOP couldn’t stop an executive order if they wanted to (see precedent – Armed Forces, Racial Integration, Executive Order) …
So – davidkians amongst our fellow-commenters, when you are ready to get serious about this, you will ignore the GOP (who are currently completely impotent on this subject), and you will continuously hit the Dems right, left, and centre, until the Dems admit that they *could* have fixed this before February, 2009, and yet chose not to … that is the honourable way to respond to DADT …
Your current spin-cycles only continue to further4 enable the arrogant cynicism of the current leaders of the Dems …
Alison hit the nail on the head. Do you think gyms and other places need to start having gay only locker rooms too?
That question is only relevant to the issue if “gyms and other places” become forward operating areas.
Holy crap, I leave the blog for a few days, and the manure being spilled in this thread piles even higher! I’ll try to keep it short and simple:
Brendan @ #29: Yes, that story is indeed sad, and huff and puff about semantics all you want, but my point still stands that folks know what they are signing up for before they join — and it ain’t Club Med. When I’m hanging out at Walter Reed barbecuing with soldiers who have lost limbs in the line of duty, I’ll try hard to remember how repealing DADT is OMG THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAH!!!! I’m sorry if I otherwise try to keep things in perspective.
We are in violent agreement here, the subtle difference between our stances being that Reid and co. are happy to play political chicken on this because, like dcl above, they’d much rather a judge force radical liberal change than compromise with Republicans on a rational, time-phased approach that takes into account the challenges of implementing this policy change on forward-deployed combat troops — a majority of whom oppose the change. Otherwise, I agree, it stinks all around.
dcl @ #46, I am not saying our soldiers cannot follow orders in a professional manner, I am just saying it should be implemented carefully and thoughtfully over time vs. forced onto them with sudden immediacy.
As for Executive Orders, no, Obama doesn’t have the authority to overturn DADT. That’s the wrong formulation. The law (passed by Congress and signed by Truman) on the books says, if you’re gay, you’re out; DADT is simply an administrative order that says the military is not going to investigate or otherwise try to force the issue — hence, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. What’s needed then is a repeal of the underlying legal code, not an EO.
AMLTrojan – while I am in gnetlmanly agreement with you that a rational transition from DADT to NBD (No Big Deal) would be an optimal approach, we *are* talking about the Dems currently in frantic attempts to increase Dem control of as many aspects of our lives as possible …
We are also talking about an Administration advising its career lawyers not to waste time doing anything about black intimidation of white voters – and all the while using the photo-negative language of back in the active Jim Crow days to “justify” it … it doesn’t take a stretch to see our current First Occupant uttering the immortal words at a Friday evening, December 24th – “I signed the DEBATE Executive Order a few minutes ago, correcting a wrong which is all Bush’s fault – this Executive Order – Don’t Even Bother Asking Them Enything – which is now valid in all 57 States of our Union, and around the world wherever our fighting forces are engaged in the illegal wars that are all the fault of Bush. And now Mr Gibbs will answer your questions while I duck out to go Holiday Shopping with my lovely wife and beautiful daughters.”
And the MSM will dutifully report that “At this afternoon’s White House Press Conference, President Obama again showed what a wonderful and devoted First Husband and First Father He is, spending quality time with the First Family during this Holiday Season (that is totally unrelated to anything those extreme right-wing christians try to tell you).”
There are those who believe that the most accurate definition of an honest politician is one who *stays* bought … and our current First Occupant isn’t even *that* honest …
OK – it’s Open Season …
The best pseudo-dictionary definition of “gnetlmanly” earns the respect of me (and others) …
SIGH !
Start your thesauri !