Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

[bluedawg12]

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

This is a re-post, from earlier this month. This information is worth recalling, now that SecDef Gates has let out the little secret to Fox News that DADT will be kicked down the road a little.

DADT is harmful to gays and lesbians serving in the military with honor, distinction and valor and it is also a bad law, one that has harmed our military as well.

This was a bad law to start with and it was based on personal bigotry and has harmed military capability.

...........

bluedawg12 (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-10-09 03:51 AM
Original message
Things that make me go...WTF in F?
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 04:41 AM by bluedawg12
Did anyone just catch Jon Stewart?

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show just interviewed Nathaniel Frank, the author of Unfriendly Fire - How the gay ban undermines the military and weakens America a book about the consequences of DADT to our military and the discharge of over 12,000 military members, many of whom were considered “mission critical” personnel,
since this ill conceived law went into effect.

This is the most appalling thing I have heard in a while. After discharging hundreds of Arab speakers and translators who were outed as gay as a result of DADT, the US intelligence intercepted a message from Al Queda on September 10, 2001 and it read, “tomorrow is zero hour.”

Due to the shortage of Arabic speakers, even as gay Arabic speakers were being discharged to create that shortage, the message was not translated until September 12, 2001.

Frank also said, that many of top brass who were involved in that policy making admitted that the data wasn't there and they were acting on their own beliefs ( insert: prejudices) and now regret it.

The policy also destroyed unit cohesion by forcing members to live a lie and then further damaging cohesion when they were yanked out of their unit for discharge.

..........

http://www.unfriendlyfire.org /

Unfriendly Fire, by Nathaniel Frank, is the definitive story of “don’t ask, don’t tell” written by the nation’s most widely-recognized expert on the policy.

Drawing on decades of research on gay service and hundreds of exclusive interviews with policymakers, government officials, academics and service members, the book shows the cruel and unaffordable costs of the current gay ban.

Praise for the bookThis book lays out clearly, fairly, dispassionately and accurately the terrible cost to our national security of this insane policy. It brings light not heat to the debate - and the light makes change seem not just necessary but urgent.Andrew Sullivan, blogger at - The Daily Dish and author, The Conservative Soul

Frank makes a compelling case not only that there has been a shift within our society, but that the time has come to look beyond our preconceptions and focus on capabilities. This book should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military. - General John Shalikashvili, former Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Armed Forces

.............

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Creators+ ...

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"
Definitive Book on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Out Tuesday; Speaking Tour Begins Today

SANTA BARBARA, CA, March 2, 2009 – Military officials exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion and ignored research and data when formulating the current policy on gay troops, according to the much-anticipated new book, “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” out tomorrow.

The book, based on a a decade of research and hundreds of interviews, was written by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, and one of the nation’s most widely recognized authorities on gays in the military. Dr. Frank is appearing with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher today at the Center for American Progress to discuss her proposed legislation to repeal the ban.

Publication of the book by St. Martin’s Press falls on the 15th anniversary of "don't ask, don't tell." Frank spoke to key military and political architects of the policy, many of whom acknowledge in the book that it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”

General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tops the list of prominent leaders who have endorsed the "Unfriendly Fire," saying it “should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military.” Congressman Patrick J. Murphy, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the only Iraq War veteran in Congress, said Frank’s “timely book should put to rest any lingering doubt about whether ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is working—it's been a failure from day one and should finally be put behind us.”

The Palm Center has launched "Send UNFRIENDLY FIRE to Congress!" which is an online campaign to put a book into the hands of every member of Congress by this spring.

.........

More from the Palm Center
Fantastic work on DADT abd gay military history here:

http://www.palmcenter.org/programs

There is a link to the a video with Dr. Frank

"Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America."

http://www.palmcenter.org/events/dadt/evening_honor_all ...

>>An evening to honor ALLAN BÉRUBÉ
Start: 05/01/2008 - 6:00pm
End: 05/01/2008 - 8:00pm
Timezone: Etc/GMT-7
The Palm Center will co-sponsor a panel discussion and evening program to celebrate and reflect on the life of the scholar and community activist, Allan Bérubé. The event will be hosted by its other co-sponsor, City University of New York’s Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), and will be held at CUNY’s Graduate Center in New York City on May 1. It will feature invited speakers and an open forum.

Bérubé, who died in December at age 61, was an independent historian and community activist, and author of the Lambda Literary Award-winning Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II, which recounted the experiences of gay GIs from that war. His work brought to light the formative influence of wartime mobilization and military life on both gay culture and American society. Bérubé’s activism in the gay liberation movement started in the late 1960s, and in 1978 he co-founded the San Francisco Lesbian and Gay History Project. In 1996, he received the prestigious genius grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which allowed him to begin work on a history of gay men in the Marine Cook and Stewards Union. He is remembered not only for his pioneering work in casting light on the gay and lesbian past, but for his incisive contributions to working-class studies, and his passionate leadership of every community he inhabited...read more"

[Skittles]

1. the ban is based on homophobia and NOTHING ELSE

I served with many gay folk in the military and there was never any problems - the only problems caused are by the homophobes themselves

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Hubby says the same

from twenty years in the navy

[Skittles]

3. thirty years ago I just don't remember it being a big deal

they weren't out of the closet so to speak but they certainly didn't live in total fear either - I think the religious right whackos had something to do with it

[Starry Messenger]

4. Thank you for the repost, bluedawg12.

The ban is based on nothing. I am incensed to find that military personnel were discharged in such a callous and cruel manner. They must have felt SICK knowing that their valuable skills could have helped prevent 9/11.

We are at a dangerous time when all skills need to be available for coming to some sane conclusion in the middle east wars. THIS is the time to make this happen.

[bluedawg12]

6. You are very welcome. I think this shows how politics can trump

national security. This law was never meant to improve the military, it was reflection bigotry even at the expense of security.

Perpetuating this is wrong.

[bluedawg12]

5. Here's something interesting from 538.com in Nov. 2008

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ghosts-of-1993.html


Check out Nate Silvers thoughtful analysis, then his caution in NOT predicting action on this and then, check out the unsupportive replies that follow.

11.22.2008

The Ghosts of 1993
by Nate Silver @ 4:21 PM
Share This Content
What high-profile policy change has the support of 75 percent of the American public, and could be implemented by changing a very few simple statutes at essentially no cost to the American taxpayer?

That would be a repeal of Public Law 103-160, the 1993 measure more commonly known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which prohibits openly gay persons from serving in the United States military.

Public sentiment on DADT has shifted dramatically since 1993. A May, 1993 poll by ABC News and the Washington Post showed that 44 percent Americans favored allowing homosexuals (their wording) who have publicly disclosed their orientation to serve in the military, as compared with 55 percent opposed. An identical poll taken in July, however, shows 75 percent in favor versus just 22 percent opposed. Other recent polling shows similar results; in May 2007, CNN showed 79 percent of Americas in favor of allowing for openly gay troops to serve to 18 percent opposed, and in March 2007, Newsweek had 63 percent in favor and 28 percent opposed.

What has changed? Well, certainly, America has become more liberal on a variety of issues related to same-sex-attracted individuals. But also our country is now at war, and military recruitment has become more of a problem. Not coincidentally, the number of dismissals under DADT has decreased significantly since 2002 as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ramped up. (It's not OK to be gay -- the army seems to be saying -- unless we actually need you.)

If this were any other issue, it would be the sort of slam-dunk stocking stuffer that a new administration would be looking to implement quickly to bolster its favorability ratings. But of course, DADT is laden with historical significance, precisely because of the way that the Clinton administration mishandled the issue in 1993 and expended a lot of its political capital in the process. A Washington Times report -- as yet unconfirmed by other sources -- suggests that Barack Obama is likely to delay action on the issue until perhaps 2010.

Does Obama have legitimate reason to proceed cautiously? It is hard to know. On the one hand, even if those who still oppose gay servicemembers are in a small minority, sometimes the minority is much more vocal than the majority. Going after a DADT repeal would surely pique the interest of the Radio Republicans; they'd attempt to portray Obama both as a liberal boogieman and as a political naïf for making the exact same mistakes that the Clinton administration did.

On the other hand, perhaps this is the sort of fight that Obama should be inviting -- for target-practice if for nothing else. Obama should be fully ready to deploy the patriotism card, e.g. that our best and bravest troops should be allowed the honor of serving our country, and the commonsense card, e.g. that when our forces are stretched thin, we can't be dismissing them for something as frivolous as their sexual orientation.

This is also precisely the sort of issue on which the Radio Republicans are liable to overplay their hand, missing the fact that Americans are capable of finer points of distinction than "Gay People Bad!", and that there is a sizable swing vote that is ready to see gays and lesbians serve in the army, even if they aren't ready to see them get married or adopt babies. Let the Radio Republicans wallow in their own insignificance.

Put differently, if Obama can't get a DADT repeal passed, then good luck with something like universal health insurance, which though also supported by solid majorities of the public, is not at 75 percent support, and will be met with much, much more vigorous resistance from lobbying groups.

Now check out the replies to Nate Silver, a warning sign of "I got mine, don't plan on getting yours," politics to come. Does some of it sound familiar? :grr:

don't think it should be a top priority. Too much of a trap, even though it is the right thing to do.

November 22, 2008 4:29 PM
proudfoot said...
Something like that might force Obama to expend political capital which might be useful for other things.

Still though, its an excellent act of symbolism.

November 22, 2008 4:30 PM
< tyler curtain > said...
Two Clinton-era travesties deserve to go down decisively: DOMA and DADT. I think that working carefully, not enraging the Neanderthal base, and building broad-coalition type support for repealing cultural war legal homophobia will be a challenge. As you note, the Radio Republicans are looking for shrieking drama. How ironic!

November 22, 2008 4:30 PM
low-tech cyclist said...
I strongly disagree, Nate. Maybe the wingnuts would overplay their hand, but the very overplaying would make this a big, distracting ruckus.

No Drama, dammit.

In 2009, we do stimulus, we do infrastructure, we do health care, and hopefully climate change and the re-regulation of the financial system.

AFTER all that, let's talk about Net Neutrality (which is dear to my heart), EFCA (ditto), and DADT repeal.

But not until. DADT will fall, but let's do the big, important stuff first.

November 22, 2008 4:32 PM
fred said...
Universal health care first, then DOMA, then think about DADT.

There are bigger fish to fry, dont waste the good karma on the smaller things.

November 22, 2008 4:36 PM
thene said...
DADT needs to go, and is going to go, and even McCain spoke quietly in favour of ditching it - but I don't think there's any particular benefit in doing it now rather than in 2010. 'Symbolism' is the right word, considering how many gay and lesbian people there are in the military; the don't ask part is holding up (except when it comes to Arabic-speaking translators...) It's not nearly as urgent as ENDA, nor as constitutionally fucked as DOMA. It will happen, but I'm sure I'm not the only queer who'd rate ENDA, and SCHIP and other health policies, as greater priorities than DADT. It's more a joke of an anomaly than a factor in people's lives...come on, the military is almost as gay a profession as the stage or the priesthood or the Republican party!

November 22, 2008 4:37 PM
reelgeist said...
2009 will not be 1993 because Obama understands that the real battle is won from away from the cameras, not in front of them. 2009 will not be like 1993 because Obama understands that the pendulum has swung, and that the country is post-Reagan era rather than in Reagan-era's consolidation. But perhaps, the biggest reason why 2009 will not be like 1993 is not Obama- its in the stats you used.

and so on and so on, the lack of supportive replies and the excuses and fear of the right wing, just goes on and on you can read more at the blog

November 22, 2008 9:09 PM
zwrite said...
YES, HONESTY IS IMPORTANT

How many people on this post favored George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security that he announced the day after the 2004 election?

Remember, Bush said he had the political capital to make the change and, thus, he was going to do it -- even though he didn't bring up the issue during the campaign.

Yea, that's what I thought. ZERO hands.

If Obama proceeds on the gays in military issue, he would be being Bushian. Bushian means dishonest.

And voters will be RIGHT in complaining about this Bushian tactic. As numerous people have said, he should move forward on the bread-and-butter issues that he talked about.

And if he loses the support of people like ReelGeist who don't care about democracy, so be it. People like that have no understanding how much they are hurting their own cause.

Let's fix energy, health care, and education. Obama was specifically asked by Bob Schieffer what his top priorities were and that was his answer.

Others should take the lead on the gays in the military issue -- not Obama.

Shalom,
ZWrite

.....

[bluedawg12]

12. There are over 1,000,000 gay veterans

There is evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADT

[bluedawg12]

29. kicking because it's relevant to today's discussions and

there is some good info. from an active duty military officer here, who supports gays in the military.

And also, when this was posted there was hope that the MRA would pass, it never came to a vote.

[sarge43]

7. The basis of the 'official' military homophobia is the need of

Them What Be In Charge to have a diversion for the troops, ie someone/something to fear and hate - The Other. Without one the troops fear and hate Them What Be.

Use to be minorities, then women (still is to some degree). Now with the large numbers of minorities/women in service and fully integrated, only gays and lesbians are The Other now.

"The policy also destroyed unit cohesion by forcing members to live a lie and then further damaging cohesion when they were yanked out of their unit for discharge."

The policy also forces straights to live a lie. If a service member knows a co-worker is gay, s/he has two bad choices: Either keep quiet which is a regulation violation or rat out co-worker. In short, damage unit cohesion.

[bluedawg12]

8. Nailed it! Exactly why it is bad for unit cohesion, ratting out a fellow troop

having someone suddenly disappear from the ranks, only to find they have been drummed out, when they were doing a good job and well liked.

I know this, that the military is nothing if it is not top down. The brass with the scrambled eggs on their visor set the tone and ethos of military culture.

There are already rules in place about fraternization, the troops follow the rules that are set and that is the way it's done. Unless of course someone at a command level turns a blind eye to harassment, but overtime those who don't play... retire.

[bluedawg12]

9. "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman."

>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

In 2000, Northwestern University Professor Charles Moskos, the principal author of DADT (which, as originally coined by Moskos, was "Don't Ask Don't Tell; Don't Seek Don't Flaunt"), told "Lingua Franca" that he felt that policy will be gone within five to ten years. Moskos also dismissed the unit cohesion argument, instead arguing that gay people should be banned due to "modesty rights", saying "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay ." Moskos did not offer any alternative to his DADT policy.<11>


In 2005, member of Congress Marty Meehan (third from left) unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the policyOn September 13, 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (on October 23, 2006 renamed the Michael D. Palm Center), a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, issued a news release revealing the existence of a 1999 FORSCOM regulation (Regulation 500-3-3) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.

Public opinion
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.<15>

Military personnel opinion
A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays and lesbians serving in the military, 37% opposed gays and lesbians serving, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. 72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale. Of those respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay or lesbian personnel, only 51% thought that such unit members would have a neutral or positive effect on personal morale, while 58% thought that they would have a negative effect on unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.<16>


Statistics
In the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993), the military has discharged nearly 12,500 troops from the military due to homosexuality.<17> Statistics on the number of persons discharged per year:

<<

[14thColony]

10. I admit an obvious and just-discovered ignorance

of these aspects of DADT. And I'm a currently-serving military officer who was in the service prior to the Clinton era!

With absolutely no sarcasm but simple honesty, I would appreciate if someone would school me on what I'm clearly missing about DADT.

Here is what I was, I suppose, "taught to think" about it:

- That prior to DADT, merely being 'homosexual' was in itself grounds for disciplinary action, to include discharge or worse

- That DADT, while being a compromise, nonetheless was an incremental step forward in that it de-criminalized the mere fact of being 'homosexual', and only criminalized 'homosexual activity' - it wasn't enough to 'be', you had to 'do' as well (please note I always thought this was inherently stupid - gays and lesbians are volunteering for military service, not joining a convent).

- That due to the more stringent requirements for disciplinary action (person must admit, or must have been witnessed engaged in proscribed activity) the discharge rate would dwindle from the previous 'gay = gone' era. Clearly this not only didn't happen, but the trend went the other way.

I'm at a loss and would appreciate it if someone could explain or direct me to an explanation of how DADT made things worse, which I don't dispute that it quite obviously did. How in the hell did something peddled as a 'step in the right direction' end up as a sprint in the wrong direction?

[bluedawg12]

11. There are plenty if stories of AD personnel who get reported

by a busy body in a grocery store, perhaps seeing a couple hold hands or give a peck on the cheek, and then they call the base with a tip. Once someone, anyone "reports" the service member, they are called in and asked directly if they have engaged in same sex activity and they must answer a superior truthfully. Then they are drummed out.

What I gather from reading about the stories of service members that have been separated for this, there is a climate of anonymous tips, which leads to investigations.

Anonymous tips + ruined careers = unAmerican, IMHO.

[14thColony]

13. I agree with you

Presumption of innocence goes out the window. Plus anonymous tips can and often are abused by people with a grudge or a vendetta. I have no experience with this sort of 'tipping' myself. Maybe it's because I've been around a while, but if confronted with an "are you gay?" question by the command, that's when I'd exercise my right to shut the hell up and request Area Defense Counsel. Let the command bring all their mounds of evidence from their anonymous tipster to the JAG and try to convince him/her they have a case for discharge. I can't imagine a JAG giving an anonymous tip the time of day. JAGs don't like to lose to ADCs in court, so in my experience cases have to be pretty well airtight before they'll take them.

My two experiences were with a lesbian Staff Sgt who worked for me, who we went to great lengths to cover for even though she seemed intent on outing herself and her partner as publicly as possible, and an E-3 in training who I was appointed to conduct an investigation of because he 'self-identified' out of the blue. The JAG briefed me that in his view the bar of evidence was very, very high because "we've already spent half a million dollars and two years training this guy (he was a linguist) and NOW he suddenly remembers he's gay?" As far as the JAG was concerned, unless the kid could produce video proof, he wasn't going anywhere. Obviously our JAG's view wasn't a widespread one.

[bluedawg12]

14. The best answer is probably the most obvious.

Enact laws that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and at the same time reinforce rules about fraternization, which ( I am guessing) had to be enforced when women entered in numbers into the military as nurses and support personnel, probably circa WWII.

Then, the same as in civilian life, office romances are not such a great idea and should be discouraged, for many reasons.

As far as the lesbian you mentioned, I guess it's a mixed blessing one one hand, that she was comfortable with her sexuality so that she was open, at the same time, it was flouting federal law. People need not be placed in such a situation. Imagine, a young newly wed E3 not wanting to share his or her wedding pics, or the new baby (dependent LOL) pics.

Looking at it from both sides, folks should not be in a situation of having to cover for a fellow AD service member, nor should service members have to cover their own trail.

[14thColony]

15. Yep, you're right

Just end it and be done with it. There will, of course, be incidents. But as long as commanders come down swift and hard, the word will get out. Ultimately, we are trained to do as we're told. If my peers are any indication, the majority of us won't care in the slightest if lesbians and gays are allowed to 'serve openly.'

However the fraternization rules won't do what you think they will. In general, frat must involve an officer and an enlisted person, or a senior NCO and a junior NCO or enlisted person. If two people of the same 'rank tier' (both NCOs, both officers, both soldiers) want to have a relationship, even if they work side-by-side in the same unit, they are free to do so. To be fair that will have to apply regardless of sexual orientation, or it will have to be banned completely and without exception (which is pretty much impossible, and therefore pointless).

[bluedawg12]

16. Hey, thanks for the clarification of fraternization.

I guess it goes to abuse of power, as in unequal rank situations, similar to a boss taking advantage of an underling. Makes sense.

I am encouraged by your assessment of the ability of the military to assimilate open gays and lesbians.

I understand that there are about 65,000 serving today, it would be nice to think that we won't lose well trained and qualified people for that any more.

Any thoughts on why SecDef Gates said it is being kicked down the road for a while? It sure seems like the trend is in support of that culturally and politically and I read the even CJCS Adm. Mullen had come out in favor of it. Plus, if we are increasing our presence in Afghanistan, while we still have troops in Iraq, it seems like some new personnel would be useful.

[14thColony]

17. In my personal opinion

most militaries worldwide are averse to making big changes. We tend to be a socially and institutionally conservative bunch, taken as a whole. Remember that Truman had to order the military to integrate racially, we didn't do it on our own. Same with women in non-medical roles, and then later women in combat roles. We're just not going to make decisions like that on our own, and since Gates is SecDef, I would think he would tend to see things more from a military (socially conservative) perspective than might otherwise be the case, if simply because that's the mindset he's surrounded by.

That said, I don't see it as a bad thing. Militaries are not tasked with or established to be social experiments for the rest of the society they serve, and it's best they don't try to initiate changes like this one their own (in the US system, they can't). But when directed by national leadership, they can do it, and ironically are often on the cutting edge of social equality and change -- they just don't ever in my experience initiate the change themselves.

But witness the modern US military -- for all our many foibles, this is nonetheless a place where it is impossible for a woman to be paid less than a man for the same work, likewise for a religious or racial/ethnic minority to be paid less, or be given less benefits than a white person. All E-4s with 4 years of service, for instance, will get exactly the same base pay each month, no exceptions. Due to the nature of testing for rank in most services, advancement at least in the enlisted ranks is likewise pretty egalitarian. You either have the points to make rank our you don't, and 'the system' (which is often computerized) could care less what color or sex you are. The first black officer was promoted to general in 1940, and the first female officer was promoted to general in 1970, pretty 'cutting edge' given the social conditions of those respective periods. Likewise I am proud of the fact that the US military is a pretty ruthless meritocracy - race and gender might get you a slight head start, but they won't carry you all that far. The trail is littered with incompetent people who didn't realize that until too late.

[bluedawg12]

18. A couple of thoughts come to mind.

I don’t expect the military to be a cauldron of social experimentation, on the other hand, under civilian leadership, it can be led to reflect change in society and often for the better. By opening up the pool of applicants to all sectors of society, there is a better chance of getting the best people and most effective people. As you said, these changes come from civilian leadership and above the SecDef the CinC is the boss.

I doubt very much if Gates was speaking on his own, I would expect that he was relaying the message from the very top. Which still leaves the question why pull back now, especially when there is a bill in front of Congress to repeal DADT and new legislation that would allow for fairness, as I understand it, it is coming up for a vote in April. This sure seems like a strange time to kick it down the road.



H.R.1283
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Sponsor: Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (136)
Latest Major Action: 3/3/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

I agree about the meritocracy part - except if your gay. That kind of internal inconsistency still sends the wrong message. You are all equal, except some of you and when we find you--adios. I think DADT was a very corrupt law that has done more to harm the military than help it.

You know, I was looking at a new demographic tool last night, it’s a new web site where you can pull up maps and look at different variables. One thing that struck me was that currently military recruitment was highest in the States with the lowest educational levels, especially beyond high school. They also happened to coincide with the reddest States to some degree. I wonder if that is going to be part of the problem with changing the current law?

[14thColony]

19. I don't know why they're kicking it down the road

It seems now's as good a time as any to do the right thing.

The military has long been a bastion of representation from the red states, even before they were red. The post-Civil War Reconstruction period drove large numbers of Southerners to join the military, both for a job and to regain some lost pride/dignity, and Southern military tradition from long before the Civil War has sustained that virtually to the present day. Hell, it's partly why I'm wearing a uniform.

Add to it that the military's a pretty good gig - 'socialized medicine' (gasp!) for you and the family, possibly for life, steady pay, travel opportunities, and you can imagine why the under-educated high school grads with little other hope would jump on it.

[bluedawg12]

21. It is a great opportunity for young folks to get training

and great experience, well, if you don't count certain situations. Still, I see it as a chance that is being denied to all people and that's what makes it a shame, plusm they want to serve.

The other thing is honor and service, in times of crisis, it's very alienating to not be allowed pitch in.

Man, of all the things that people could gripe about, gays wanting to serve should be the least troubling and one of the most laudable.

[xchrom]

20. i'm guessing MOST straight men and women serving in the military

have showered with a gay man or lesbian.

just a guess.

[bluedawg12]

22. And they lived to serve another day!

I think you are right. :evilgrin:

[xchrom]

24. amazing isn't it?

;)

[14thColony]

23. Really...

I've never understood why some of my fellow heteros would think that a gay man would jump them at the first opportunity. Dude, seriously, go look in the mirror...chicks don't dig you, why would a gay guy?

[xchrom]

25. shhh -- don't tell anybody --

you'll ruin our reputation.

[bluedawg12]

27. Just think, adding "Gaydar" to the arsenal will add to our security

in case we need an early warning system for an imminent invasion of gays from countries that are in flagrant violation of good taste!

[bluedawg12]

26. ....

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

28. 1,000 former Generals write a letter to Pres. Obama in favor of DADT.

Just listening to Rachel Maddow, Clifford Alexander, Frmr. Sec. of Army saying that the claims of these protesting Generals is old news and not a single fact supports it.

True, they brought out the same old tired lie about unit cohesion and readiness. I guess the rabbiddy right never rests.

[bluedawg12]

30. I support President Obama on his pledge to end DADT.

There is no reason for us not to have his back on this, rather than giving the impression that the left is divided on DADT, as some would suggest by the "hypothetical hurdles" thrown into the mix.

We elected a man who ran on this. Let's support him openly, there is little to lose much to gain.

I support President Obama on his pledge to end DADT.

[Duncan Grant]

31. Thank you for posting the Palm Center links!

:hi: :thumbsup:

The Palm Center - University of California Santa Barbara

[bluedawg12]

32. You are very welcome!

We are totally on the right side of this issue.

:hi: