©
The inevitable arrived early. Despite overwhelming evidence that the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy was doomed one way or another, it didn't appear Congress would ever muster the courage to end it - until Saturday.
On a 65-31 vote, the Senate finally approved legislation to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Among those voting for the measure were Democrats Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia and Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Kay Hagan of North Carolina.
The vote was somewhat surprising, given the hyper-partisanship on Capitol Hill these days - not to mention the chronic hand-wringing and waffling over this issue. Among those voting to uphold the ban was Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was for the repeal before he was against it.
McCain and other opponents were bound to lose, sooner or later. If nothing else, a generational shift in attitudes toward homosexuality - in the armed forces and the general population - ensured that such a discriminatory policy would not last.
Recent court rulings also indicated the ban would not withstand continued legal challenges. That likelihood prompted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - one of numerous Pentagon critics of the policy - to urge the Senate to join the House in voting for a repeal rather than let the courts impose a schedule for ending the ban.
The legislation includes provisions for phasing in the repeal. Additional training and other steps may be necessary to ease the transition, but Secretary Gates and others should move expeditiously to end the ban. There's no need to continue denying the reality that gay Americans can serve - and always have served - honorably in the military.
More than 13,500 members of the armed forces have been driven out since the "don't ask, don't tell" policy went into effect in 1993. Countless others have lived in fear of reprisal, opted not to re-enlist or decided not to join because they didn't wish to live a lie.
A recent Pentagon study indicated that a vast majority of men and women in uniform are already aware they serve with gay people and don't have a problem with lifting the ban. And, in a major turnaround from two decades ago, opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans no longer believe a ban is necessary.
At the start of this debate, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, summed up the situation well: "I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hide who you are."
The military will adapt to this change, just as it did to racial integration and to allowing women to serve. In both those cases, critics predicted the sky would fall. It didn't. It won't this time, either.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
A Question
Not having served in the military, I prefer to leave comment on the right or wrong of this issue to those who have.
But the purpose of the military is not to raise our society to a greater level of sophistication, it is to keep bad people from killing my grandchildren. Anything that interferes with that mission, I oppose.
We have plenty of people here with experience in serving. I know the military will obey the orders and implement the policy, but I don't know how will they feel about it.
So, tell me, what would the effect on the Navy's mission if, say, 1 in 3 Chiefs simply decided that it was time to move on and chose not to reenlist for their next hitch because they felt uncomfortable about this change?
Gee, a so-called libertarian
Gee, a so-called libertarian passing the buck on individual civil liberties.
What a shock.
When I was young and naive (and voted Libertarian) I used to think you guys were actually FOR the individual and against the encroachment of individual civil liberties by government.
You may still be, but only when it affects YOUR individual wallet.
As for the hypothetical 1 in 3, if someone has enough hatred in their heart to put their own irrational prejudices over their love of their country, then they should not be in positions of leadership in the first place.
And the US is not the first nation to lift the ban--at least fifteen nations have already taken the step. Israel seems to be doing fine, as are the others.
Its not about how I feel, or about how you feel
its about the mission. That comes before everything else.
I would not personally have a problem serving with gay soldiers or sailors, but its not how I feel that matters. I can debate about what people should think, but I find it pretty much pointless to try to argue someone into 'feeling' what I want them to feel. In case you haven't noticed, we have a volunteer military. No one has to stay in for a career, they can simply not reenlist for any reason, including how they feel about serving.
I chose Chiefs as my question for a reason. Like Sergeants in the other services, they are the repository of experience and expertise in the Navy. We can ill afford to lose that experience and knowledge, and you can't replace them through recruitment, recruits, by definition, lack experience.
Finally, you may feel entitled to stand in judgment of those who sacrifice family life, much of their own personal freedom, and place themselves in harms way to defend us, but I don't.
If the men and women who defend me and mine harbor feelings that aren't at the cutting edge of social tolerance, I am perfectly willing to let them catch up in their own good time.
I owe them that consideration.
You can wait. We're moving forward.
"If the men and women who defend me and mine harbor feelings that aren't at the cutting edge of social tolerance, I am perfectly willing to let them catch up in their own good time."
If everyone had that same laissez-faire attitude, we'd still be barring blacks and women from the service, and missing out on a lot of skilled personnel in the process. The military doesn't exist in a time warp - it has to change and adapt like the rest of society, and the sooner the better. Someone who's willing to fight and die for his or her country shouldn't have to live a lie in order to make narrow-minded bigots feel better about themselves.
Its not about what you should or shouldn't have to put up with
its about the effectiveness of the military in performing its mission.
No, if you have the votes, you can impose this on the military no matter how they feel about it.
But you might want to start studying Arabic and give some thought to how Gays and Lesbians fare under Sharia.
What does that have to do with anything?
Last I looked, our military was under the rule of the UCMJ and United States law, not Sharia law. But since you bring it up, YOU might want to do some research into what happens to adulterers under Sharia, and then take a look at all the military who have extramarital affairs.
Gays and lesbians can, do, and have performed effectively, even exemplarily, in the military since its inception. If there's going to be a disruption, it's going to come from the bigots who refuse to put skill above sexual orientation, and we don't need those people in the armed forces.
Can you give us
just a few examples of who these LGBT were that performed so well? Under DADT, how would anyone know.
I'll tell you, I'll provide financial support for the defense of the first brave Christian service member who joined under the conditions of DADT that refuses an immoral order to shower or disrobe in front of openly gay service members. That is the stuff of moral principal and religious freedom. Not joining under a condition that you agree to keep your sexual orientation secret and then complain about it. That just social grandstanding to move an agenda forward.
Libertarians...
There is no black and white definition of any political party or affiliation, and there are always going to be acceptions to rules. Aren't we always asking folks to be "flexible" with their opinions? As for gays in the military, it is not a simple issue. Women who serve are given private restrooms, locker rooms, and living quarters, correct? Unless I am mistaken, a man is not allowed to use a woman's locker room to change or "hang out" next to women, correct? In fact, isn't that against the law? Someone much more informed than me can answer this, but are we seperated by physical differences or sexual differences? Should lesbians be using men's restrooms? Like Doc Tabor, I'd like to know what those who served at high levels think. I don't think anyone believes we should choose our military leaders based on their "tolerance" levels. I want people who will take a hill or a bunker, not wax philosophic about gay rights. They'll do what their told, sure, but are we asking them what is RIGHT for the institution which protects our rights and freedom to be "tolerant"?
libertarians
used to be for individual liberties but the Libertarians have now been taken over by washed up republicans.
And a question in return
"But the purpose of the military is...to keep bad people from killing my grandchildren. Anything that interferes with that mission, I oppose."
Hmm. And here I thought the purpose of the military was to protect ALL United States citizens and national borders. Someone should let the DoD know their mission has changed.
But let me ask you this: Do you think barring those willing to serve, and worse, discharging trained and qualified personnel solely because of their sexual orientation doesn't put your pweshus grandchildren at risk? Do you think it's worth having holes in our national defense just to keep them from being having to protected by Teh Scary Gheys? Are you truly that bigoted? Frankly, if 1 of 3 Chiefs is so narrow-minded they'd choose to leave rather than work with gays, I'd say "good riddance".
OK, an answer, though I still haven't had an answer to mine
Anybody who serves and stands between my grandchildren and those who would harm them has my respect and gratitude, whether gay or straight.
But that isn't the issue. The issue is the effect of ending DADT on the mission. My concern is not whether gays can serve honorably, they can. As Barry Goldwater put it long before it became fashionable, 'You don't have to be straight, you only have to shoot straight.'
But we have a volunteer military. No one has to reenlist. I don't know if the Non-Coms will opt out or not, which is why I asked the question, but if they will in significant numbers, then we are not yet ready to take that step. We can't afford to lose them.
So, I don't care what you think the military should do. I don't care what the Generals and Admirals think is best. What I, personally, think is best isn't really that important, either.
I want to know what the Chiefs and Sergeants think. Because that IS what matters to the mission. If they can take the change in stride, then great, but if not, then we should wait until they are ready, because they don't have to be there for us, and we can't afford for them not to be.
DHS
secures the border. Mr. Obama sent UNARMED troops to the border to do intel work and admin work. NOT to actively protected the border. Last estimate, over 12 million snuck across that "secure" border and Congress just tried to give a bunch of them amnesty. So how's that military thing protecting the borders working for us?
working?
How did it work for you when republican Ronnie Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegals and gave hope to millions more?
It didn't
and I opposed it then and oppose it now without regard for who the POTUS is or what party is in power. But the issue was that the military defends the borders, which they don't.
Those gays that are
Those gays that are currently serving are also protecting your grandchildren from the bad guys. Though I agree with the other poster, that the purpose of the military is to protect the USA, I must ask if you are doing your Grandchildren any kind of service by telling them it's ok to treat others differently because you don't find them, "normal?"
Democrat Bill Clinton - this was his idea, right?
Didn't President Bill Clinton create "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Why is it that important fact is somehow overlooked by the media? I endlessly hear/read about "Bush Tax Cuts" in the media. But oddly, I haven't heard of "Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
It was his idea and every
It was his idea and every time I have read an article about it, it was mentioned he was the one who signed it. Plus, it's one of the things (besides that whole Monica thing) that he regrets the most.
Ban?
I've read that it is estimated that 4% of our troops and sailors are gay. If so how can you call President Clinton's DADT policy a "ban"? I've also read that the U.S. Marines and other front line "Combat Troops" are opposed to having openly homosexual folks in the trenches with them. As a combat veteran I agree with Senator Mcain. This will not affect the rear echelon servicemen and women nearly as much as it will the front line troops who are forced to live in very primitive and personal conditions. I see the Pilot and other media sources putting a happy face positive Spin on this from their safe insulated lives. I just worry about the guys and gals on the front lines who must work around a most difficult situation.
Please tell me where you
Please tell me where you have read this? There are gays and lesbians on those front lines as well as heterosexuals. No one is denying that some people will have a problem with this, but you are acting like that this isn't an argument that has been used before. When African Americans were no longer segregated, people were afraid of the impact it would have on the troops. It didn't have much of an effect and our military still goes on.
When women were introduced into the military, people said that it would effect morale. Sure it had some effects, mostly sexual harassment, but we got through it and our military still stands.
The same thing will happen. This argument was used in other countries who were allowing gay members to serve and yet...they are also still standing and the countries still exist.
Change
I'm sure that the change will not affect the military in most situations. However, the change will adversely affect those forward combat units and ships with limited berthing options. For example, should the military force hetersexual females to berth and shower with an openly gay females? There are plenty of other examples. Please understand that situations like this will make it very difficult for military commanders to accommodate their servicmembers without disruption.
Is it really "change"?
Here's something you don't seem to understand - gays are ALREADY in the military. Heterosexuals ALREADY shower, berth, etc. with them, and wonder of wonders, the Earth continues in its orbit. It's about time straights got it into their heads that gays don't find them irresistably attractive. It's also time straights got over their groundless, prejudice-based fears and grew up. If gays love this country enough to serve and die for it, they shouldn't have to live a lie in order to soothe the pearl-clutchers' narrow little minds.
Your objections are puzzling
Why is it so important for homosexuals to live their life free of a lie, yet heterosexuals aren't free to live their life in a manner that affords them their religious freedom and the freedom to freely associate with who they want to, at a time and place of their choosing? DADT was doomed to repeal, yet I don't know what the course of action should be. I would think that those that value each persons basic worth as a human being would respect the differences and try to provide a just, equitable and honorable solution for all. But it's not that way with the LGBT lobby or you. You provide no empirical data that gays are serving, yet are quick to point out that they don't find heterosexuals to be irresistibly attractive. Exactly how do you know that? Can you provide the irrefutable proof that what you say is an absolute truth? And if not, would you not a least agree that a heterosexual service member has the right not to reveal his/her body to someone who has openly announced their attraction for the same sex? I guess the more your rhetoric is repeated, the more acceptable and palatable it becomes for some to accept. It's easy for Congress and the top brass to repeal this policy without consideration for those that must live with the consequences of it. They get to choose who they'll shower and disrobe in front of. Service members don't. That just sounds repugnant to me.
Heterosexuals are still free
Heterosexuals are still free to have their religion. Just because gay members are serving doesn't mean they have to give up their religion. If their religion is to get rid of people and get them fired (which no religion is) or make others lies...I think they need to find a new religion.
And heterosexuals can still associate with who they want to. No one is saying, "you have to be their best friend." No one, you just have to accept that they are there. The gall of someone to say that they don't have religion freedom and freedom to associate is not only baseless but absurd.
There is proof gays are serving! If there weren't gays serving there wouldn't be gay members who were discharged. Are you insane? How is that not proof.
To speak about proof that not every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual. Are you attracted to every woman you come across? People are attracted to different types of people. Sure, some homosexuals are going to be attracted to heterosexuals but that doesn't mean they will hop on them and try to have sex. Do you try to have sex or force yourself on every woman you are attracted to?
Heterosexuals are still free
Heterosexuals are still free to have their religion. Just because gay members are serving doesn't mean they have to give up their religion. If their religion is to get rid of people and get them fired (which no religion is) or make others lies...I think they need to find a new religion.
And heterosexuals can still associate with who they want to. No one is saying, "you have to be their best friend." No one, you just have to accept that they are there. The gall of someone to say that they don't have religion freedom and freedom to associate is not only baseless but absurd.
There is proof gays are serving! If there weren't gays serving there wouldn't be gay members who were discharged. Are you insane? How is that not proof.
To speak about proof that not every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual. Are you attracted to every woman you come across? People are attracted to different types of people. Sure, some homosexuals are going to be attracted to heterosexuals but that doesn't mean they will hop on them and try to have sex. Do you try to have sex or force yourself on every woman you are attracted to?
"It's about time straights
"It's about time straights got it into their heads that gays don't find them irresistably attractive."
I agree, I'm not attracted to every woman I see and I'm sure gay people aren't attracted to every member of their sex. To the poster wanting proof that they aren't, there is: common sense.
Change
There certainly is change; it goes from "not knowing" to "knowing". Basically I'm stating that you've got to take into consideration those people who don't want to live in that sort of environment; some don't mind and others will. It is shortsided to assume that everyone has the same level of morality or expectation of privacy. Personally, I never had a problem with it when I served. However, there were plenty of servicemembers that would feel very uncomfortable. If it is not an issue then why not have everyone cohabitate. Yes, our military men and women will follow regulations and orders as directed. However, that doesn't mean that it will be well accepted in every unit.
Mirror Image of the Westboro Baptist Church
The self righteous arrogance of the left never fails to amaze me.
We ask men and women to join our military and defend us. Their families live on a wage that is not that much better than welfare, we move them around the world every few years, so their families can never put down roots, and we send them away from their families for a year or more at a time, repeatedly, to wars with no clear purpose. They risk all for us.
And then we expect them to reenlist and make defending us their life's work so their training and experience do not go to waste.
But if anyone suggests that their opinion on a change in how they live and work be respected, the left screams that if they don't choose as the enlightened ones see fit, they are bigots.
Where do you folks think you get the right to sit in judgment of those who sacrifice so much to defend you?
Where do you think you get the right to impose your value system on them?
You are no different in principle from the Rev Fred Phelps, you are just standing on the other side of the street.
Answer your own question
"Where do you folks think you get the right to sit in judgment of those who sacrifice so much to defend you?
Where do you think you get the right to impose your value system on them?"
Good question. Now answer it yourself. Where DOES the right-wing think it gets the right to say, "I don't like who you love, therefore you must pretend to be someone you aren't"? Where do the "NO GAYS" crowd think they get the right to sit in judgment of the many gay servicemen and -women who have fought and died for this country? Where do they get the idea that only straight people have the right to be open about their partners and spouses? Before you go accusing those who want equal rights and treatment for all of being analogous to a hate group, you need to take a good hard look at your own rhetoric...remember that old saying about the mote in your neighbor's eye and the plank in your own.
Straw man
I didn't say any of those things. I said that the effectiveness of the military was the primary factor and that if retention of experienced soldiers and sailors was to suffer because of the change, then we should delay the change until that was no longer the case. That's not a value judgment. To the contrary, it is acceptance of the values of those serving.
Keep in mind that prior to DADT, it was a crime to be gay and in the military. With DADT, policy was to look the other way. Every gay soldier or sailor currently serving joined knowing those were the rules, and every straight soldier or sailor joined with the expectation he would serve with other straights or at least gay comrades who would keep it to themselves.
Now, you want to change the rules. OK, lets assume for the better.
But still, people joined under the old rules and are not bound to reenlist when the rules are changed. And, you have no right to slander those who choose to leave the military because you changed the rules. To do so is to impose YOUR values on them. Just like Rev. Phelps.
Clinton Was Smart, After All
I continue to think Clinton came up with an elegant solution to a potential problem.
What people don't seem to catch is the immensity of the word "openly." This is an invitation to a thousand lawsuits. The ACLU is salivating.