Why ask troops about ‘don’t ask’? The military isn’t a democracy

Just more lolly-gaggin’ by Bush. Oops…I meant Obama. I get the 2 confused since neither President is worth a damn. Both spend money like a woman at the mall on black Friday.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, asking what those who are affected by legislation what they think about it, certainly is not the norm in the country these days. We usually simply get hammered by whatever the idiots in congress feel they want to do.

• Link
• Report this comment

me – not be

• Link
• Report this comment

Was this approved by Obama. He is the Commander-in-Chief. If not, can we expect another law suit? That seems to be Obama’s strong suit.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, America is not a democracy either but people get polled all the time asking their opinion on a wide range of topics.

• Link
• Report this comment

Let the chaos begin. Military doesn’t have enough problems right now. It is important to let the politicians make their lives more difficult.

• Link
• Report this comment

Apologies, at 11:42 I intended to use the phrase “bringing in….” It was not my intention to suggest dumping homosexuals into the ocean.

• Link
• Report this comment

sorry, but shouldn’t it be “their” voices need to be heard.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Themper Fi !” and “Ooo Wah!”

The “Fighting 69th” …………. motto: “Never Leave Your Buddy’s Behind” !

• Link
• Report this comment

Tommy Maddox, update your talking points. This is what is going on in Detroit….

June 17, 2010…

DETROIT (AP) — General Motors Co. says it will keep most of its U.S. factories open through the normal two-week summer shutdown to meet demand for some of its vehicles.

The automaker says it will keep nine of 11 assembly plants open to make 56,000 more vehicles that are in high demand, such as the Buick LaCrosse luxury sedan and the Chevrolet Traverse large crossover vehicle.

GM said in a statement Thursday that the company is trying to reduce waiting time for dealers and customers to get vehicles.

• Link
• Report this comment

CT, you write about something about which you know nothing. I served proudly in the military many years ago but wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole nowadays. The so called ‘gays’ are going to be the downfall of this nation! People of your ilk can’t seem to see that.. Also, it should be ‘their’ not ‘there’ voices.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar Danneskjöld :

Oh, there’s lots more ……….. I just can’t post it …………..

Military Quote of the Day:

“When I joined the military it was “illegal” to be homosexual and then it
became “optional”. I’m getting out before it becomes “mandatory”.

Author Unknown

• Link
• Report this comment

While it’s nice to have the poll and to have an idea of how the new policy will be received…..give the military their orders and wash out those who cannot or will not obey.

IMHO, Homophobes in the service are more dangerous than homosexuals, just as they are in civilian life.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia is speaking for 70-75% of the American public, depending on which “poll” you prefer.

• Link
• Report this comment

As a retired military officer, let me add my perspective. I am a centrist that tends to lean more right than left. As I have gotten older, my views have changed, and what I was once against, I have learned to accept. While I may not like something, I am not a racist, homophobic, etc, etc, etc, I just don’t like or agree with it. I don’t believe in same sex marriage, and I don’t think I ever will. But that is me. I am happy with my better half, and all should be in a loving relationship, so, if a same sex union works, well, then so be it. It is really none of my business.
When in combat, you trust your buddy. You have to have the confidence that you buddy will cover your back. And I think your buddy can be, white, black, man, woman, straight, gay, and all the other politically correct terms. As long as the regulations apply equally to all, then there should not be a problem. A straight couple can’t have sex in a dorm, so for gays or lesbians, same rules apply. If someone makes a sexual advance, same rules apply. Don’t condone it. No special privileges, no special rules, you follow the rules and regulations.
Racism exists more in the non-military world than in the military. Are there pockets of racism, heck yes, on all sides. But for the most part, military people form a bond, because they are away from family, and your buddies are your family.
When I retired, we moved to Chicago. My son came home from school one day, and announced at the dinner table, that the reason there were no blacks in his school, were because blacks are not smart enough to attend the school…. He was maybe 9 or 10…. I said really, and then said, I guess Mr. Bill could not go to your school… and he replied, dad, Mr. Bill was a helicopter pilot, yes he is smart enough. Then I said, well I guess Mr. Frank and Miss Nancy (husband and wife) could not go to your school, his reply was, dad, Mr Frank was the Officer Club Manager and Miss Nancy is a school teacher, they could go to my school.. Then he look at me and said, dad, the kids at my school don’t know what they are talking about. I guess my point is, you judge individuals, not groups.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny Godzilla

This should be the ‘Zillette’s third tri-mester.

All is well?

Name picked out?

• Link
• Report this comment

Carl Levin…what a joke.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see DannyX is foaming like a rabbid muskrat. Lets allow him to vent as it should be funny.

• Link
• Report this comment

“As a retired military officer, let me add my perspective…” and then ya lost me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia,
While I agee not completing the survey isn’t the best course of action, I would also question the motives behind the survey. Fortunately, as junior officers or enlisted personnel, we don’t have a choice of which lawful orders to obey.
I see no difference in establishing this policy [of gays and lesbians openly serving] and the no discrimination policy regarding women and blacks. Decisively change the policy banning gay and lesbian discrimination and move on.

• Link
• Report this comment

There isn’t any corollary between racial integration in the military and allowing open homosexuality. Many on the far-left attempt to make that bogus argument. Carefully examining how repealing DADT might affect morale is an important consideration. How else can that determination be made without seeking input from each level within the chain of command. The military is there to defend and ensure this nation’s security, it’s not there for social engineering experiments or to serve vote pandering politicians like Carl Levin.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar

As the article points out, the military is not a democracy.

Had service members been polled prior to racial integration there is no doubt the results would have shown a strong bias against integration. The military leadership in conjunction with Congress and the Executive Branch need to do what is in the best interests of the nation.

Dismissing highly qualified and distinguished service members simply because they are homosexual does not serve the nation’s interests. At a time when we need Arabic linguists and other skilled service personnel we are dismissing them based on sexual orientation.

The sole criteria for the military should be the ability of the service member to do his or her job. Their conduct will always be subject to the military code. Any gay service member “hitting” on a straight service member should be subject to the same punishment as a man or woman hitting on a member of the opposite sex.

• Link
• Report this comment

” so I’m doing twice the household chores”

They let you out of the nursing home for that?

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg

You know you are one of my favorites?

Actually, I’m normally the one who does the nursing. We are taking in one of Mr. G’s oldest and dearest sometime next week after surgery….he has no family left so we’ll be doing the nursing required
in our home for as long as that dear old coot needs it.

That help any punkin?

• Link
• Report this comment

“The birthers are going to explode new info in the next few day’s about the guy.”

Oh I can’t wait for that!

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg:

They keep Granny on a long leash at the nursing home.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, obviously theories that lead to concrete actions, inventions or “provable” statements such as are found in mathematics and physics is one thing. “Theories” that are really just quaint sayings or downhome proverbs are so not the same, and are really only useful when they are used for humor or amusement. At the end of the day, the say or prove nothing. NOW do you get MY point.

Enjoy your casseroles. I have to go back to creating revenue for my household so that we may enjoy eating in reality, not theory.

• Link
• Report this comment

Start with the name Barry Soetoro ( obama) Occidental College has released in the last few days some Schloarship aid to this person, in fact a Fulbright Foundation Scholarship, who ONLY gives this aid to Foreign citizens. What reason does Occidental need to lie ? Someone is?

• Link
• Report this comment

It must be snowing in hell. I agree with CT on this one.

• Link
• Report this comment

JB

Oh That!

Actually it exploded in April 2009.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think Gays should serve in the military but serve together not mixed with straights! An all gay combat unit to fight against the Muslims would drive the Muslims crazy!

• Link
• Report this comment

swede brings up another good point. let’s say there is an American citizen of Arab or Persian decent, who has been condemned and alientated by his “people” because he is gay (a huge taboo in the Muslim world – punishable by death, I beleive). you think he might be an asset as a linguist, or intelligence operative? you think having someone fluent in Arabic or Persian, with an axe to grind might come in handy when a special forces A-team “operates” in the Middle East? this scenario screams ‘insurgent’ – only in this instance they’re working for us. there is not one compelling or rationale argument to ban homosexuals from the military, save the “feelings” of homophobes who are presently serving.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ct, follow the supreme court closely the next few weeks

• Link
• Report this comment

Birthers, flat earthers, and tenthers OH My!

Head back down the yellow brick road fella’.

• Link
• Report this comment

JKL2….hmmmm….. you’ve never seen God but you believe in God….Obama’s birth certificate you have seen but you don’t want to believe…now tell me who is the fool.

Obama also provided healthcare to cover when your God did not…..

Personally I’d go with Obama as being the better for my individual needs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Personally, I’ll go with God……That’s just me though….good luck to ya…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Good work Granny

• Link
• Report this comment

MiltonMan, unlike Vitter, the “christian conservative” who was referred to as a “client” in a DC call girl’s black book. don’t get me wrong, what happens in DC stays in DC, but let’s not go getting too high and mighty when it comes to “lifestyle choice” issues.

• Link
• Report this comment

JB

Most of the time indeed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama tells us ( his words) he traveled to Pakistan in 1981……………..The US had a no travel
status on Pakistan during this time…..What passport did he use…..? just asking

• Link
• Report this comment

JB

Actually US did NOT have a “no travel” status on Pakistan at that time.
They did issue a travel advisory regarding new Visa requirements in August of 81.

Snopes. Very Old Snopes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar, you’re kidding, right? Gay service members cannot ‘wear their sexual proclivities on their sleeve’ but heterosexuals can? first off, I cannot amagine a more “fabulous” sleeve (starched, pressed, razor sharp creases, etc.) than those of your 8th Gay Brigade. and, I disagree with your comment regarding racial integration or gender integration. the issues with an integrated Army/Navy involved the baseless fears or prejudices of a handful of soldiers, sailors and airmen, and not any hard data, which as you point out, proved otherwise (Tuskeegee Airmen, Japanese American units fighting in Europe, etc.) homophobia is exactly what the name implies; a (baseless) fear of homosexuality. homophobia is itself a liability, not an asset in combat. as I said, maybe the DoD should take a page from Scout’s book and ask all volunteers if they are homophobic. if they answer yes, allow them to serve in some benign, non-combat capacity, where their fear is not a threat to national security. then read Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.

• Link
• Report this comment

when soldiers are in uniform, are’nt they the same? It’s a job. If the job is well performed, then results are achieved and goals are accomplished – the mission is successful.

• Link
• Report this comment

If they would just do this thing, stop discharging servicemen and service women for no other reason than their sexuality, this would quickly become a non-issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear neo @ 1:24, I think you correctly identify where the problems have arisen in the sex integration: “Gay service members cannot ‘wear their sexual proclivities on their sleeve’ but heterosexuals can?” I think it dishonest to suggest that sexual behaviors will not adversely affect unit cohesion and performance, and I think the best proof arises in the recent effort to integrate the sexes in the military.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny…you’re right. I am sure you’re a silver foxy mama!

Rut….glad we agree that God does not provide health insurance reform…unless of course God was working through Obama…but I am sure there is some test for that so that we know who speaks for God and who does not….Or what socialism is/isn’t ….or why billions in taxpayer’s subsidies to Big Oil is somehow not socialism (maybe because its taking from the poor and giving to the rich).

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know about you, Ragnar, but almost anyone is indistinguishable from anyone else in that camo gear they all wear. I almost can’t tell men from women, much less identify which ones might be gay. The military code fairly well prohibits sexual behavior in uniform, from what I’ve read.

• Link
• Report this comment

Isn’t this all really about leftists inflicting as much dissension and ill-will as possible within the most conservative entity in American life?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m 100 % with you Richard………I will vote Republican, I will not vote incumbent

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Gale @ 1:33, I wish your post were true. Among my son’s duties are “investigation of unwanted sexual advances” and, of course, worse. Sex is different from race.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep up: “…billions in taxpayer’s subsidies to Big Oil..”

Please provide evidence of such subsidies. Otherwise you are just making *^@# up to support what is an inherently invalid argument.

Anyone with a brain knows Obama and his supporters are all about forced wealth redistribution. Its obvious. But at some point, there will be pushback. Major pushback.

The founding fathers and the first pilgrims built this country out of wilderness and nothingness. They developed its core principles, its basic foundation, from whence the mightiest and strongest nation the world has ever known came into existence. Those same principles can be used to do it again, if need be.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Gale @ 1:28, just read your note. At risk of suggesting what you already know, not everyone who is discharged for “homosexuality” is actually homosexual – the homosexual discharge has superseded Heller’s Catch-22, as the easy way out.

• Link
• Report this comment

So many experts about the military on this board. First off, the Army uniform is no longer called camos/BDUs. They are now called ACUs/ASUs (Class A/B). If you need to reference the uniform make sure you know what you are talking about before making yourself look like a fool.

• Link
• Report this comment

Please excuse the cut and paste. The total savings from these proposed subsidy eliminations–$45 billion over the next 10 years. Here are the tax expenditures that the Obama administration has targeted for elimination.

1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.

2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.

3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.

4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.

5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.

6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.

7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.

8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar @ 1142 – there you go again – gettin’ all logical on us and stuff

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice try, Keep Up. LOL

Europeans knew how to build ships that could navigate across the deep ocean for many months, yet had no idea how to plant corn? Bizarre

Tell us oh wise one, where would the land that is now the USA be if the white man had never arrived? Would the natives have turned into in an Avatar-like paradise where man and beast lived in peaceful harmony (awwww)? Would there be a Boeing, an IBM, a Ford, a Microsoft, a Caterpillar, an Intel, AT&T, J&J, etc? Tell us all, what wonderful, history and world changing innovations the natives would have now developed for the rest of humanity to enjoy?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bill :

Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled they are exempt.

• Link
• Report this comment

ragnar @ 106 – dang – you did it again (still trying to catch up). I believe the limit is 3 logical posts /day. Careful – you’ll use them all up

• Link
• Report this comment

This is all so unnecessary and counterproductive to military discipline.

We should just stick to the tried and true “Don’t Ass, Don’t Tail” policy.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

• Link
• Report this comment

My rights were violated in the service, but since I’m heterosexual, no one cares.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am wondering if we are a democracy or even a democratic republic, either one tries to take care of the majority of the people, I think. Then why do we have all this talk about gays, are they a majority? If 5% is, then they are, and one more thing I really do not care what you do in your bed room so STOP telling me. Why is it that gays want to make sure you know they are gay? Where is the heterosexual day parade?

• Link
• Report this comment

Just my opinion, but if gays are allowed to openly server, without behavioral conditions, then I would say, let us integrate the genders totally. Anyone remember the movie Starship Troopers?

• Link
• Report this comment

Women in submarines now!?! With no walk-in closets? That’s absurd!

• Link
• Report this comment

It is no one else’s business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar, my reference to the 8th Gay Brigade was an acknowledgement of your sense of humor. I think you might want to read the 2:21 post by Urban Republican. if ANY member of the military (gay or straight) enlists simply to “pay for college” and would be “petrified” by the prospect of somebody “looking at my goods” in a shower (as if being leered at, or subject to cat-calls from heterosexual male soliders is OK), and the oddest of all; being “distracted” during basic training for “having to think about someone’s sexual proclivities” – well, I don’t know what to say. I never served, but is it the mission of “basic training” to “train” recruits to think about the sexuality of others? as stated, it seems to me the “straight” soldiers are the ones with the issues. I have never heard a gay soldier express such nonsense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Military members are most affected by repealing DADT. However, unlike most interest groups they are not allowed to lobby and demonstrate while serving on active duty. As such, I think it is fair and useful to survey them to conduct this internal survey. If nothing else, the Dept of Defense may realize the extent to which it must educate and where necessary, accomodate, so as not to impact the morale and readiness of our all-volunteer force.

• Link
• Report this comment

Honey, I wasn’t looking. You’re the only one who thinks you’re a hottie.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you haven’t served, it’s easy to believe that the military isn’t a democracy, so we should just force them accept a sweeping social agenda and keep their mouths shut. The fact of the matter is, we are voting American citizens and we have opinions too. So strong are our convictions that we actually do something about it. I served off a combat ship with 4,000 men during war. We had 23 men in one month removed from the ship and flown back to the U.S., because they were caught in the act of having relations. Nobody is allowed to have relations in a combat zone. What this meant was that during a time of war, 23 positions were immediately vacated. This would have been the case whether they were having relations or doing crack. Imagine if 23 of your coworkers were removed tomorrow, because they knowingly, willfully broke rules. In this economy, those jobs are easily filled and over time, you’ll learn to work with the new people. But when a military unit, particularly a combat unit loses a member for any reason, it changes the cohesion of the unit. Then there is the implication of inter-unit relationships. They typically don’t work with men and women in non-combat roles. They cause much jealousy, in-fighting and heartbreak. (All the discipline in the world can’t prevent biology, so 19-year-olds do hook up.) The stakes aren’t simply, “The new guy got a better cube,” they are life and death. So yes—the folks on the front line should absolutely have a say in how you try to mold their world.

• Link
• Report this comment

“…but the mentality is that Europeans did it better is again ignorance and ignores history.”

Always with the ignorance canard. How does recognizing the massively superior technological advances of western civilization “ignore history”? One might surmise you and your kind are the ones ignoring history — and current events.

Why is it the world over there isnt a single native/tribe like culture that has done anything except perpetuate the misery of its people? Haiti? Zimbabwe? Sudan? They are not the exceptions, they are the RULE.

Facts are facts. Look around the WORLD. By choosing to ignore what is plainly evident while screaming ignorance about others is, IMO, a form of insanity.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gale, I’m a Vet and I have Gay fiends and family, so I have seen both sides of the issue and to be honest ( I must have grown up in a innocent age)I had no idea what “queer” was when I got drafted. I heard the term and was completely lost on the meaning. Having been completely ignorant when I went into basic and lived through two tours after being enlightened I see no reason to keep this an issue. We have bigger fish to fry.

• Link
• Report this comment

A new open policy for gays will sure breath some life into those drab camo uniforms. Not to mention the decorating schemes around the base.

• Link
• Report this comment

When I read this article, the first thing that came to my mind was “why should we care what Cynthia Tucker thinks about DADT? She’s not relevant.”

Wait…that’s the first thing that comes to my mind when I read anything by her.

I know Cynthia…it’s a wierd concept for you dems. You’re not used to asking people what they think about a law you are going to impose on them. It’s not like the democrats are running a democracy or anything.

Maybe if you asked “why” they are asking the troops what they think, then you’d find your answer. Pssst….it’s because most of the military don’t want to end DADT because they know it will cause problems… But why would you or Obama care about that? Its not like either one of you would ever have the courage to put on a uniform.

• Link
• Report this comment

we need separate units to begin with. Let the Pink Shoe Navy and the Glorious 8th Army prove themselves in combat before they are integrated into our existing units

That sounds a lot like seperate but equal

• Link
• Report this comment

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….

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Do those combat boots come in open toe?”

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Why don’t you like talking about race? You must be a racist!! Just kidding.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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 !

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

excuse me, IN THERE. there’s a joke IN THERE in “in their” as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Headline: “N.J. top court rules police must explain DWI test laws in native language”

Brilliant ……. all of you cops better brush up on your Chinese !

• Link
• Report this comment

Urban Republican, then the modern Army (DoD) is a government jobs program for Americans who “who want to get ahead”? Please refer me to the part in the Constitution (here’s a hint – the military is mentioned in Section 8, but don’t waste your time, you won’t find any reference to “..life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth…” Nope, sister, the military is required for “common defence”. Now I know it has become a de facto mercenary army, which according to fellow vet Andrew Bacevich, is (mis)used to “project power and influence” overseas, but as a Republican, I am sure you would agree that if you wanted a college education, you should have been born into a family with the assets and…err, wealth to educate yourself, and I hope you didn’t receive your taxpayer funded (”G.I. Bill” ) at a taxpayer funded (Neal Boortz term); “government school” like say, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, the University of Georgia, or Georgia Southern. I hope you graduated from Emory, or Agnes Scott, or Ogelthorpe. Every socialism-hating, capitalist-loving, flag-saluting, American knows, the free market is the way to go. Your hypocrisy is palpable (and while I am at it, if you are a Christian, or practice any faith besides Wicca, let me know if your “church” pays taxes, or if your cash contributions to said church are tax deductible?

• Link
• Report this comment

“native language?” I grew up in NJ. do you think they meant Algonquian (the language of the Delaware/Lenape tribes of NJ, according to my Boy Scout training in the 1970’s)? Let’s ask Rut. I am sure Rut knows what the “native” language was in NJ, before the Dutch and Germans arrived.

• Link
• Report this comment

To Jon: In short – if you can’t spend six months in a war zone paying attention to doing your job instead of imagining the sexual/relationship thoughts of fellow soldiers, then guess who is the real threat to unit cohesion?

• Link
• Report this comment

And we’re not a democracy either, Einstein. We’re a representative republic. Funny that a ko.ok wouldn’t be in favor of a poll, since you same freaks lived by polls during all 8 years of Bush’s presidency. Just more, typical liberal hypocrisy.

• Link
• Report this comment

“about leftists inflicting as much dissension”
no, it’s just another one of those times where the fast have to keep reassuring the slow that path ahead is safe then the slow finally find out that yes it is safe.

• Link
• Report this comment