Obama Administration Screws Gay Servicemen and Women
From the beginning of his campaign, his Highness Obama said he would eliminate the moronic "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy that prohibits willing men and women who wish to serve their country and put their lives on the line for their country simply because of their sexual orientation.
The President can eliminate the policy with a stroke of a pen. No need for congressional approval. Yet the Obama administration supported that policy before the U.S. Supreme Court and convinced the Supremes not to hear the case, thereby keeping the policy in place.
A big harumph to the President....for yet again, another campaign promise broken.
What supprised me it that Gays and lesbian Americans actually voted for this President based on this one promise.
California Democrats kicked these folks in the butt some months ago by keeping Prop 8 in place. Now the President has kicked them in the butt, this time from the White house. Just goes to show you....never, ever trust a commie wanabee. (socialist)
OK, he's a lying sack of shit, that's something that will hopefully undermine him when it comes time to re-elect...
However, the decision was the correct one for the military. I don't like the man, his administration, or his Party, but I'm glad he broke this promise.
Mambi, I respectfully disagree. I don't think folks who play for the other team (to steal a Seinfeld line) are any less capable of defending their country than those that play for our team. Hell, they've been doing it for years, but they've kept it quiet. It's a voluntary military. If someone want to join and serve honorably, then so be it. The argument used to advance the rule is the same argument they used to keep blacks out; it's simply a prejudiced based argument with no rational basis. Just my 2 cents.
But we are in agreement where his HIGHness is clearly a lying SOS.
Mike; they can join all they want, but they are not allowed to flaunt it, that's what the policy basically says. It was a middle ground reached during the Clinton administration, which also wanted to drop all controls. It's a matter of good order, discipline and morale (trust me I've been there). All they have to do is keep it to themselves and they can serve a full career. Once again, it's critical to a disciplined military. Remove all controls, and watch what happens. Another liberal-left policy that we can do without.
Now, back to what we do best - bashing that worthless SOB. Cheers...
It's not that simple, Mambi, to assume that if a gay man or woman keeps quiet about sexuality that commanding officers won't come after them. There have been plenty of stories in the last twelve years about soldiers getting discharged after their sexuality was discovered. There are fairly infamous accounts of Arabic translators and linguists getting discharged after 9-11. Then there's this <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268952606832391.html"<recent Wall Street Journal story shows. Note this paragraph:
In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform "create an unacceptable risk" to military morale and "unit cohesion."
For all we know it was a perfectly innocuous situation. A fellow soldier happens to spot a picture of a gay man/woman's partner. Two soldiers from the same hometown on leave, one of whom happens to see the other holding hands or kissing someone of the same sex. Life is complicated, and if you think it's easy for gays like me to keep secrets you're sadly mistaken.
Moreover, we'll all agree that the Israeli army is the toughest in the world, and it's allowed gay men and women to serve for quite a while, with no reported problems on morale.
This is one more reason for Ted Rall to slice his wrists... (wishful thinking, I know)
Honestly I am torn on this issue. I strongly believe that a person's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do a job. To discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference is grossly unfair and uncalled for. By the same token, the military is not a corporation, or an office, or a club -- the military is a fighting machine that depends on the moral of its soldiers to be able to be effective and victorious. I have a huge problem with anyone that thinks conducting a social experiment with our military would not affect its readiness and moral. During the Clinton years, the "don't ask - don't tell" policy bridged that gap between out and out discrimination, and allowing the military to maintain control.
After so many years this policy, although serving its purpose, has grown long in the tooth and a new one should be designed that both guarantees the rights to all soldiers, regardless of their sexual orientation, and at the same time allows the military to do what they are here to do: be a cold, efficient, fighting machine.
I don't purport to have the answer, but I do believe that the shelf life of "don't ask - don't tell" has expired and we need to find a different way to address this issue. Making believe it does not exist and continuing with the same bandage will only end in a much larger problem in the future.
Have to hand it over to our current “Messiah” (opps, President I meant).
In such a short period of time (shorter that I could ever imagined) he has thrown under the bus more campaign promises that I could ever expect from any American President in my lifetime.
They say all a man has is his word, but this guy’s words are worth two pennies because he goes back on them on a split second.
He could care two shits what he promised to the people during the campaign.
What a bullshit character...unbelievable!
FFC, reminds me of a certain someone who made a certain promise to his people and to the world and the media
"No, I am not a communist."
Now hmmm, what bearded prick mofo could have said that?
Soto; you've misrepresented the facts. Commanders do not conduct witch hunts by "going after" homosexuals, and that certainly wasn't the case with Witt. Someone complained, and once a commander has the proof he has no choice but to follow the rules - Period. The current law prohibits what you imply, and it has worked fine, keeping us the most effective military in the world.
Our military is the best and most respected in the world, we don't need to be like anyone else, whether Israeli, British, Dutch, or whoever else you want to throw out as an example. In fact, if the Israeli military is so effective, it's because they're surrounded by morons who can't fight and because they fight for survival. Many Western militaries have lost their warrior spirit and grown soft as they've allowed themselves to mirror their "enlightened" societies. I've witnessed some of that first-hand and I'd hate for our military to go the same route.
Alberto; this will turn into the proverbial 'slippery slope' if we permit the changes to take place. And, if we say this particular policy's shelf life has expired and change is necessary, well, then the same can easily be made for many other issues we are debating today - the Left will have a field day.
Sorry, but I just don't see the need to change anything in this matter.
Cigar Mike,
A bullshit contest between Fifo and the “Messiah” would be an event for the ages.
They would surely duel each other in ways that we would never expect.
I can only picture it, bullshit flying in every which way possible and the audience mesmerized like a bunch of zombies.
No wonder the “Messiah” is so eager to re-establish relations with Fifo.
It's unfortunate that homosexual have to be in the closet about their sexuality, but I can imagine a lot of people still have deep beliefs against homosexuality. I can imagine a lot of men would be uncomfortable knowing a gay man is in the same unit as they're in, and would lower morale. Personally, I can handle someone that's a homosexual, but most wouldn't Has there been a survey done to the military about this subject?
"Nearly one in four servicemembers knows definitively that a member of his or her unit is gay or lesbian..."
(http://www.palmcenter.org/node/753)
A 2004 Poll asked active duty servicemen the following:
"Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?"
Yes: 25 No: 65 No opinion: 9
(http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2004_chart3.php#2)
"...December 29, 2008 'Army Times' article 'Troops Oppose Repeal of Don't Ask'. A majority of respondents (58%) said they opposed openly gay service and 10% said they would not re-enlist if the ban was lifted."
(http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/01/15/Groups_Criticize_Survey_Supporting_Military_9646.html)
In 1993, the percentage of active duty soldiers opposed to gays serving openly in the military was 74%. (Ibid) There's a definite trend in the polling which suggests it's just a matter of time before there will be acceptance for this among the rank and file. Imposing change, in my opinion, would affect morale in the short term. But I think it's too agregious a discrimination not to overturn.
Folks, please go back in the history records and read the arguments used against integrating the military back after WWII. The same arguments were made about destroying the morale (of whites I suppose) of the troops. Later, some states argued that allowing interracial marriages would destroy society as well. Do we allow left-handed people to serve in the military even though they aren't "normal?" Of course we do. Do we allow Jews and Muslims to serve in the military? Of course we do. All of these arguments against are nuanced versions of DISCRIMINATION! Stop it and lets get on with the 21st century already.
Cangrejero, I'm with you 100%. But I don't believe a wholesale change is the answer. There has to be a plan that can ensure the rights of homosexual service men and at the same time allays the fears of those who vehemently oppose it. We're a pretty smart species when we want to be one and I'm sure we can cone up with a workable solution. But one thing for sure is that a "No gays here" argument will fail as badly as a "We're queer and we're here" argument.
Compromise, as unpalatable as it may seem to some, is the best chance to get this through as quickly as possible.