Why ask troops about ‘don’t ask’? The military isn’t a democracy
Several gay activists are furious about the Pentagon’s decision to ask the troops to weigh in on the issue of ending “Don’t Ask,” sending out 400,000 surveys asking everything from “Do you currently serve with a male or female service member you believe to be homosexual?” and “Have you been assigned to share bath facilities with an open bay shower that is also used by a service member you believed to be homosexual?”
This morning in a roundtable with journalists, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) added his own concerns about the survey, saying, “I can understand the resentment in the gay community.” Levin pointed out, as many gay activists have, that the survey is unprecedented.
Harry Truman didn’t poll the military when he decided to integrate the Armed Forces in 1948. Nor was there a survey when the Pentagon put women on battle ships in 1978. The Navy recently made a decision to allow women in the close quarters of submarines — again without surveying the male submariners.
“It would be really, really, really unacceptable for people in the military to believe it’s a democracy,” Levin said, adding, “I have my doubts about the content of the survey.”
The senator, who mostly briefed journalists about his recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, made clear that he hasn’t read the survey yet. He also said that surveys of military personnel could be useful if they are only used to implement a policy already determined by civilian and military leaders.
But according to Time’s Mark Thompson, others have their doubts:
When Harry Truman wanted to integrate blacks into the U.S. military in 1948, he simply ordered it done. When the Navy wanted women on ships beginning in 1978, it commanded its admirals to do so. When the Clinton Pentagon decided women should become fighter pilots, it issued orders telling the military to make it happen. For generations, the military mind-set has been, If we want you to have an opinion, we’ll issue you one. So why is the Pentagon asking troops how they’ll feel if forced to serve alongside openly gay comrades?
“This is a very dangerous precedent,” says Lawrence Korb, who ran the Pentagon’s personnel office during the Reagan Administration. “It gives the troops the feeling that they have a veto over what the top people want.” Not everyone agrees. “What matters is the morale of the force in the field,” says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military scholar. “The survey is an honest attempt to suss out what the effects on morale might be.” (See a brief history of gays in the military.)
But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. “We’ve never done this,” Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and said they would survey the troops about it. “We’ve never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not,” he told an activist from the University of California’s Palm Center, which monitors the issue. “I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime.”
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, says the poll is simply a political tool designed to ease a decision that would be better made quickly. Instead, it’s part of a prolonged process that polarizes those involved and hurts both national security and gays. “If we were asking questions about any other identity group — Would your wife mind living on post next to a Chinese family?, Would you take orders from a Baptist officer?, Would you mind serving alongside an African American? — these kinds of questions make those groups second-class citizens,” he says.
Still, gay service members should ignore the advice of activists who have advised them to refuse to fill out the survey in protest. That’s not a good tactic. There voices need to be heard.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
211 comments Add your comment
Kamchak
July 13th, 2010
3:42 pm
do you always have to be intellectually impudent ???
“Have to be”? No. However, when I hear someone whinging about their ox being gored and not acknowledging the thirty-year-old dead carcass behind them….
A Practical Thinker
July 13th, 2010
3:46 pm
Why can’t Cindy go away like Jay Bookman did? Does anyone miss his “columns”? At all?
SouthGeorgiaDawg
July 13th, 2010
3:47 pm
CT,
And because its a democracy means that the members of the military cannot have any input? Your logic is faulty on this issue. For example, my workplace isn’t a democracy either. However, the owner will ask for his employees input on issues from time to time even though he’s not required to. You know why he does it? Because he knows that sometimes its best to gather input from his employees before he makes a decision that will effect them.
Hence, in the instant matter, although the Military is not a democracy, and are not required to ask the service members their thoughts on DADT, they are asking them because they want their advice.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
3:53 pm
A Practical Thinker :
Gives new meaning to the phrase “up periscope”.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
3:56 pm
“Do those combat boots come in open toe?”
Jon
July 13th, 2010
3:59 pm
Unlike the private sector, complete focus / dedication– without distraction – is required while serving in the Military. Especially, in war time. Why do you think they separate GAYs – from the general population – in the prison system? You have to appreciate the process to ‘define’ the problem and understand what is pertinent and what is key. Really, if we define the wrong problem – which OBMA is good at – then we are certain to provide the wrong answer / response to the problem.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
3:59 pm
Ms. Tucker:
Let me clue you into something. When you are down in your fighting hole and the rounds are flying overhead and someone orders you to get up and charge into those bullets ………. guess what? It’s a democracy. Some charge and some don’t.
Chris D.
July 13th, 2010
4:02 pm
Yes…Heaven forbid the men & women that are putting their lives on the line to protect our Freedoms and right to free speech, shouldn’t be asked their opinions!
Liberal Pariah
July 13th, 2010
4:07 pm
The assumptive basis of Ms. Tucker’s column comparing gays in the military to blacks/integration and women is the first problem. Gays as individuals choose to practice immoral behavior not accepted by the majority of citizens and there is no good reason to allow this very vocal, politically active minority to dictate policy to the rest of us. If the practice of this immoral behavior results in a problem in the military, the military is within its rights to limit this problem. It is not a civil rights issue in this context. Given the way that the Prez has shoved health care down our throat even though the people were against it and he ‘recess appoints’ his henchman to circumvent the democratic process, I would say Ms. Tucker knows what ‘no democracy’ looks like.
A Practical Thinker
July 13th, 2010
4:07 pm
Scout: Agree. And those Special Forces berets just scream for earings!
ctucker
July 13th, 2010
4:10 pm
A Practical Thinker, Jay and his columns are still around. Sorry to disappoint you.
x-usaf(ss)
July 13th, 2010
4:17 pm
Sometimes the USAF is slightly democratic. While stationed at Goodfellow AFB in 1967 with
the 6948th Security Squadron(Mobile) and berets came into fashion, the unit was polled as
to what color we would prefer. When the unit unanimously voted for pink the idea was shelved.
So much for military democracy.
kayaker 71
July 13th, 2010
4:20 pm
CT,
If all of the members of the Armed Forces had been conscripted into serving their country, I can see that their opinion would probably be suspect. However, in an all voluntary force, where they have the option of serving or not, their opinion might be helpful in deciding their every day living conditions, ie housing, mess facilities uniforms, choice of tours of duty, etc. Re-enlistment is the key to a functioning military. This issue goes way past blacks serving in an integrated force. When close to 70% of active duty soldiers object to gays and their lifestyle, especially in the combat arms, you better listen to them and listen well. I served for over 35yrs in the active Army and would not think of making a decision of this kind without talking with my subordinates. It is not a democracy but it is a co operative, mutually understood society that works very well if left alone. When do gooders like Tucker, Carl Levin and a bunch of not a clue Congressmen/women make decisions based on emotions rather than pragmatic thought, this mutually understood society called the military cannot say much but in an all voluntary force, their actions just may speak louder than their words.
indy989
July 13th, 2010
4:23 pm
Wow kayaker 71, well said.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
4:27 pm
A Practical Thinker :
The whole Army wears berets now – Green (Special Forces), Tan (Rangers) , Maroon (Airborne) & Black (All Others). Who says there won’t be Pink?
Mallory
July 13th, 2010
4:32 pm
May not be a democracy, but it is a volunteer military.
Volunteer the information and move on.
Save the drama for the bedroom.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
4:33 pm
Urban Republican sez: “Why do liberals like yourself who have not served nor understand military culture insist on advocating for protective rights for gays in the military?
Equating protective rights for homosexuals with racial integration in the military is not the same. One cannot change her skin color but sexual acts are behavioral and can change at anytime.”
Uh. . .”protective” rights? And someone doesn’t stop being gay simply because they aren’t participating in sexual acts, so no, the stunning ignorance of a heterosupremacist that sexual acts can change at anytime (well, presumably, excepting heterosexual) is astounding.
Then you ruin your own credibility by stating: ” I enlisted in the Army Reserves to help pay for college expenses because I knew my family would not be able to support me financially through college.” Apparently you believe that 30 million gay taxpayers owed you college expenses as some kind of welfare benefit, since you would deny them the same opportunity for themselves, all because you would have been petrified knowing there might be a lesbian showering next to you. Apparently you had no experience showering with women next to you in a school gym class.
So who is it that really wants a “protective” law?
Why is it that conservatives only like the idea of welfare benefits and special rights laws when they are the sole beneficiaries?
Jon
July 13th, 2010
4:38 pm
Can we ‘discuss’ or ‘debate’ any topic without injecting the ‘race’ issue?
indy989
July 13th, 2010
4:40 pm
Why don’t you like talking about race? You must be a racist!! Just kidding.
middler and so tired of all the rhetoric :
July 13th, 2010
4:40 pm
So do the soldiers and sailors and marines get to decide which war zone they agree to fight in or they will fight against? Or which officers to serve under? Rules against things should not be the norm until legislated out; there should be a legitimate reason, not a personal prejudice, for banning someone or something in the first place. I was in the military, in the barracks too, with gay people. Some of us were friends; some of us were not. No one gay hit on me and their sexual activity was private, as was mine. Our sexual personality is a very small part of most of our lives; if you fear gays maybe you should examine why. The rest of the day we are more alike than different. We work, play, enjoy our families, worry about the economy and future. Noone is going to “turn you gay” or find you so overwhelmingly attractive they will attack you and force themselves on you. We have some fine gay service people and some not so good ones, just like the rest of us. There are a lot more important issues facing us so why not just get over it and let it go already. An awful lot of those legislators fighting equal treatment of gays are those folks cheating in their wives. Adultery isn’t better just because it’s between heterosexual men and women. Everybody gives lip service to the freedom and democracy our service people are fighting for; we just don’t want to practice it here at home.
Rafe Hollister
July 13th, 2010
4:45 pm
Kayaker 71: you make sense. I was a DOD civilian for 30 years and I can say that the majority of individuals in service do not want to serve with openly gay or lesbian individuals. Is that how they should feel, probably not, but that is the way it is. Can peoples minds be changed, yes, over time, but their will be problems initially. Barry and Levin would say that is tough, they need to get over it, the military is not a democracy and we know best. The liberals always know what is best for everyone, just ask them. The military folks are just homophobic neanderthals mouth breathers with no sophistication, according to the intellectuals in our society.
Here is the problem with forcing the issue as Kayaker points out, the force is voluntary. It shouldn’t happen this way, and maybe it will not, but you have to look at history. White flight resegregated the schools after years of work trying to integrate them. Hetrosexual flight may leave the US Armed Forces a lesser fighting force as experienced soldiers, sailors, and marines decide to vote with their feet. Hopefully, they will be better at excepting this change and our military readiness will not suffer, but we do not know that and all Barry’s reassurance may not be enough to overcome human behavior.
Gene
July 13th, 2010
4:48 pm
I served proudly in the USAF and during that time I am almost certain I served with persons that were homosexual….however, I did not ask, and they did not tell. I was married at the time, and enjoyed and continue to enjoy a monogamous relationship….I did not go around sharing my sexual lifestyle and no one asked. I did live up to my obligation and served my country, along with a great number of other airmen. I believe it is a tremendous mistake to begin a process where sexuality is elevated to a status of race, civil rights or some sort of constitutional right. GOD made Adam and Eve, enough said.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
4:48 pm
To Kayaker – Let’s not pretend that conscription would never happen again – and let’s not pretend that gays wouldn’t be readily drafted along with everyone else if the country was at war.
We already know there are cases where openly gay soldiers were sent overseas to serve in Iraq and AfghanLand despite being open about their orientation, and despite the current regulations. We also know that some of those same soldiers were never processed for discharge until AFTER they returned from their deployment.
But while we are on the subject of surveying troops about their opinions, why isn’t there any survey being done to 400,000 soldiers about having to share quarters with right-wing evangelical bullies who openly admit to serving “God” instead of defending the Constitution and the nation, and whose doctrine decrees that they must proselytize in order to “practice” their religion. That proselytization includes bullying fellow military personnel who they deem “not Christian enough,” isolating others who will not adhere to their “religious” beliefs, and causing problems in our wars in Muslim nations by attempting to paint Christian symbols on tanks or statements in Arabic about the supremacy of the “Christian” God.
There have been, according to one report, over 18,000 complaints about such tactics, mostly from fellow servicemembers who are self-identified as “Christians” but who belong to more mainstream denominations. Is solicitation for the white baby Jesus more acceptable to bunk with than the knowledge that someone else in the barracks might be gay?
As for this survey, it is an insult to both those in uniform and the American gay population who have already served this nation honorably since the founding – and have often been rewarded for such service by having their benefits revoked and their service disgraced.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
4:51 pm
Gene sez: “I served proudly in the USAF and during that time I am almost certain I served with persons that were homosexual….however, I did not ask, and they did not tell. I was married at the time, and enjoyed and continue to enjoy a monogamous relationship….I did not go around sharing my sexual lifestyle and no one asked.”
Uh-huh. So no one in the military knew you were “married” or had a monogamous relationship? Just like no one in the military has ever seen or heard of houses of prostitution near the bases and no one in the military ever impregnated women in an occupied nation.
middler and so tired of all the rhetoric :
July 13th, 2010
4:52 pm
And pulleeze! If you’re gay you are choosing to be gay and could stop. But if you are heterosexual you are born that way. So being gay is something different than race or sex because you cannot see it. Did you ever force yourself to find the same sex attractive or have sex with your own gender? I can’t even imagine it. Cause that’s how I am genetically engineered. Just like that’s how people who have different sexual desires than I are made up. Until you get to heaven, (if you believe in heaven) you will not know for certain what God wanted or made until you arrive so you have no idea if you are right. Maybe gay people are the God’s true people and that’s why there are so many fewer than us straights.
middler and so tired of all the rhetoric :
July 13th, 2010
4:54 pm
Way to go, Kevinbgoode
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
4:56 pm
Rafe sez: “The liberals always know what is best for everyone, just ask them.”
Funny – I thought the conservatives were the con-artists who were self-assigned the task of dictating a caste system of rights for Americans based on as many irrelevant characteristics as possible, while forcing ALL citizens to pay for the self-dictated conservative privileges.
Your assertion that most military personnel don’t want to serve with openly gay soldiers isn’t based on any experience serving with those soldiers, is it? Or the experiences of our allies, who years ago integrated gay citizens into their armed forces?
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
5:00 pm
JCamp sez: “Why should the gay community tell our troops how to live? I am a female veteran and I did not feel safe sharing a shower with lesbians. It happens and it’s not right. It made me feel violated every time I took a shower. How would the gay community like it if they were forced to take showers with the opposite sex?”
Am I supposed to really believe that you are capable of defending your country, when you apparently can’t protect your person (or, apparently your projections of personhood) in a shower? Obviously you never attended any swimming pool, any summer camp, or attended a school with a physical education program that required showers. And now you tell us this story thinking that I should feel like I haven’t been throwing my tax money away giving people like you the opportunity to “serve” this country when it is obvious you were only interested in serving yourself.
Liberal Pariah
July 13th, 2010
5:00 pm
middler…You can have all the sexual desires that you want and yet a culture can decide which expression of those desires is acceptable and which is not. We do it all the time with child molesters, underage sex, etc. Being gay is different from being black or a woman because it is something that you choose to do as opposed to something that you are. I believe that heterosexuality is the norm based on the Bible, the bodies design and other factors. I go one step further and posit that even if you have desires and you feel you are born that way, you still have the option to say no to the behavior. Who you have sex with is a choice you make, not one you are forced into.
Jon
July 13th, 2010
5:04 pm
@indy – let me restate. Why do we inject the race card..lol
Some People are stupid
July 13th, 2010
5:04 pm
Liberal Pariah-
Being gay is different from being black or a woman because it is something that you choose to do as opposed to something that you are.
So by definition you chose to be straight?? Hasn’t scienced proved that attraction is a natural occurence
Scout
July 13th, 2010
5:05 pm
Headline: “New claim against Gore: ‘Tried to stick tongue down my throat’… ”
Well, I guess we can assume old Al is not gay …………….
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
5:06 pm
Jon sez: “Unlike the private sector, complete focus / dedication– without distraction – is required while serving in the Military. Especially, in war time”
Uh-huh. I’m so glad to find out that there were not thousands of Amer-Asian babies born in Vietnam, there are no houses of prostitution frequented by soldiers anywhere near any kind of war zone or foreign military base, and that heterosupremacist soldiers have never painted images of women on tanks, planes and lockers. Because they were always all focused, dedicated and not distracted by anything during wartime.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
5:06 pm
kayaker71, Scout, et al; with all due respect for service, volunteer or not, draft or not; a person’s skills determine their “value” to the military. I’ve said this before, Scout, you were a sniper, right? when you zeroed in on a target did your spotter ask you if you were gay? No, because it didn’t matter. What mattered was “the mission”. kayaker, were you an officer or senior NCO? “co-operative”? “mutually understood society”? where did you serve; Woodstock? Haight-Ashbury? I’m a pretty literate guy. there’s another word for coopertive, it’s commune, and it’s the root of the word COMMUNISM. there is not negotiating in the chain of command. as CT pointed out, the DoD has always observed, the; “if the Army/Navy wanted you to have an opinion, it would have been issued at boot camp.”
Some People are stupid
July 13th, 2010
5:08 pm
Not trying to be someone who plays to race..but..there are some similarities to integration, women and gays in the military. They are all based of social stigmas. When intergration was the issue it was a social issue due to the times. Same with women, and now with gays. IF you don’t believe in homosexuality, thats completely up to you but if you expect them to pay tax money to support the military, then why is it a problem when they want to serve in the military.
Liberal Pariah
July 13th, 2010
5:12 pm
I believe that heterosexual is the norm and other than that is not normal. Attraction is not the issue, what you do with that attraction is the point. If you are attracted to the opposite sex for sex then you need to make a better decision that to indulge it. Our society allows you to make the wrong choice but it doesn’t mean that society has to accept that choice as normative. Science has not proven anything with respect to sexual behavior other than it is a choice.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
5:13 pm
neo-Carlinist :
For Pete’s sake “Neo”, if my spotter had asked me if I was gay I would have jerked the trigger and missed the shot !
Liberal Pariah
July 13th, 2010
5:16 pm
If a certain subset of the population will adversely affect the military by serving in it, then it doesn’t make any difference whether they pay taxes or vote Democrat. In the case of blacks and women the social stigma was not self imposed. If I choose to stigamtize myself socially through my behavior, isn’t it supreme arrogance to expect you to accept me and to bend the laws in my favor though I am the extreme minority?
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
5:16 pm
Liberal Pariah sez: “Being gay is different from being black or a woman because it is something that you choose to do as opposed to something that you are. I believe that heterosexuality is the norm based on the Bible, the bodies design and other factors.”
Would this be the same Bible which explicitly confides that God made Adam in his own image, and did something to Adam while he was asleep to create Eve? And wasn’t it within the confines of the first heterosexual relationship that the first “sin” was committed against God, dooming mankind to banishment from paradise?
Why should anyone care about whether you think being gay is behavioral or not? Honestly, the way some heterosexual men project sexual behavior about others – and then try to cover themselves with the Bible and “natural law” – one wonders how they could ever admit to being monogamous. How “monogamous” can a straight man be if he lets his mind wander far enough to imagine the sexual behaviors of others and then project them into policy?
Moreover, your cultural argument is hilarious, though employing the old con-artist con-servative game of attempting to compare adult gay Americans with “child molesters, underage sex” has me in stitches. Apparently, using your belief in the way culture regulates acceptable behavior, child molesters and those who engage in underage sex are highly preferred behaviors to those nasty gays, since we readily permit pedaphiles to marry and produce their own victims in this society. Why, even in Georgia just a few short years ago, while conservatives were running around the state screaming about needing a constitutional amendment makin’ sure those gays can’t get married, they overlooked that pesky little law that allowed a minor to marry an adult without parental consent as long as one of the parties was pregnant. The legislature finally repealed that law – but who brought that travesty to the attention of the state assembly? A lesbian member.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
5:17 pm
Scout, I love you, man! There is a joke (”jerked the trigger”) in their somewhere. And, don’t be modest, Marine; it would take more than that for you to miss a shot. It is my understanding all Marines are excellent marksmen, but scout snipers were a cut above.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
5:18 pm
excuse me, IN THERE. there’s a joke IN THERE in “in their” as well.
Urban Republican
July 13th, 2010
5:23 pm
kevinbgoode:
Most who volunteer to serve in the military do so not just for love of country but for financial gain and to get ahead in life.
Elitist liberals with bookish theories far from reality, do not understand that our capitalist society is defended by those who would sacrifice their lives for an opportunity to compete economically.
Top brass during an inspection asked each one of us why we joined the military and 35 out of 45 stated for the opportunity to go to college.
DADT works and a survey asking the opinion of an all volunteer army is necessary for cohesiveness.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
5:26 pm
kevinbegoode brings up a “goode” point. anybody read the blurb about a 36 year-old HETEROSEXUAL woman in Michigan who admitted to having sex with her (then) 14 year-old biological son? she gave the child up for adoption at birth, but tracked him down via a social networking site, and had sex with him. should the military (and society as a whole) be worried about heterosexual women who CHOOSE adoption over abortion, lest they may end up molesting their own children years later?
Scout
July 13th, 2010
5:28 pm
neo-Carlinist:
600 meters ……………..
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
5:32 pm
Liberal Pariah sez: “If a certain subset of the population will adversely affect the military by serving in it, then it doesn’t make any difference whether they pay taxes or vote Democrat. In the case of blacks and women the social stigma was not self imposed. If I choose to stigamtize myself socially through my behavior, isn’t it supreme arrogance to expect you to accept me and to bend the laws in my favor though I am the extreme minority?”
You are trying very hard to convince someone that gay people engage in unacceptable behavior by choice – and not doing a very good job at it. However, it is no more supreme arrogance to expect someone to accept your differences than it is supreme arrogance to demand others accept your biblical interpretations or supreme arrogance to expect others to pay for your own self-imposed, chosen interpretations of the imagined sexual behaviors of others. It is also no different than the supremely arrogant attitude that your right to marry someone you love is individual, but a gay person’s right to marry someone he/she loves must meet your approval.
Instead, you are trying desperately to cling to some notion that, since sexual behavior in the military is strictly regulated, simply the KNOWLEDGE of someone else’s sexual or relationship orientation should prevent them the honor, privilege and responsibility of serving their country. That is based on nothing but projection of sexual behavior manufactured in your mind, rather than witnessing such behavior – and thus, once again, you display the supremely arrogant attitude that your rights are superior to all others, including the right to project imagined behaviors as acceptable or unacceptable with some projected, imagined disclaimer that it is somehow a “choice.”
So yes, it is supremely arrogant to tell a class of citizens you insist should be considered less than yourself that they are responsible for paying to maintain your claim to a superior “lifestyle” based on little more than your own selection of interpretations of biblical verses.
There is little evidence that this subset of population will adversely affect the military. Are there reports and studies from other countries which have already integrated the armed forces that indicate a creation of horrendous adverse effects that put their national security in disarray? Nope.
There is only the hysterical whinings of conservatives and their suspect manufactured, personally-selected “religious” interpretations, which, I’d wager, since they are voluntary choices and not inherent, could be changed much more easily than someone’s sexual orientation.
ctucker
July 13th, 2010
5:32 pm
Yes, Some People are stupid, there are similarities between integration of gays into the military and the integration of blacks and women. Not strict parallels, but certainly similarities.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
5:33 pm
P.S. neo-Carlinist:
No, “jerk the trigger” is a military shooting term ………. or you can “drag wood” or get your “Kentucky windage” wrong, etc.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
5:37 pm
Cynthia:
Even though it’s not “life & death” like the military and therefore less important, I think the NFL should diversify – don’t you?
There needs to be only 15% black players and the rest divided appropirately among whites, hispanics, asians, etc. And ……….. there should be at least one woman playing on the field at all times.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
5:39 pm
Urban Republican sez: “Most who volunteer to serve in the military do so not just for love of country but for financial gain and to get ahead in life.
Elitist liberals with bookish theories far from reality, do not understand that our capitalist society is defended by those who would sacrifice their lives for an opportunity to compete economically”
And, apparently, elitist conservatives with entitlement theories believe that a capitalist society works best when opportunity is based not on merit, but on irrelevant, unrelated characteristics that provide themselves with the most profitable welfare benefits provided by ALL Americans.
Funny how you don’t mind that many gay veterans joined the military because of their love for this country (a truly heroic act since they have been treated as second-class citizens, especially by conservatives) and then drummed out without any of those special rights benefits conservatives believe must be reserved only for themselves. So, using your analysis, we must assume that gay soldiers have not only loved their country more than heterosexuals, but knew they could likely, and easily, lose any financial gain benefits simply because they were gay – no matter how well they served this country. Just think of the ROTC students who, when coming out, had their scholarships pulled while they were attending college. Or the veterans who, up until the last decade or so, were completely stripped of their honor, their service disgraced, and their benefits for life with a dishonorable discharge, all because they were gay. Impressive, huh? All that time they were defending the freedom of people like you to make their lives a living hell for the next 50 years and gaining nothing for themselves.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
5:44 pm
Liberal Pariah sez: “I believe that heterosexual is the norm and other than that is not normal. ”
Neither is lefthandedness. Care to give us a list of things lefthanded people should give up to accommodate the “normal” righthanded people who might, given a selected interpretation of any random biblical verse, decide they feel “violated” if a lefthanded person is around?