For gays in uniform, critical Senate vote looms today

UPDATE: Senate Republicans have blocked consideration of the defense authorization bill containing a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The vote to end the filibuster was 56 in favor and 43 against.

Which means the side with 56 votes loses.

(Harry Reid was one of those voting against, which allowed him to move for later reconsideration.)

———————

Jonathan Hopkins graduated fourth in his West Point class, served three combat tours, was awarded three Bronze Stars (including one for valor), served as a platoon leader in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and commanded a Stryker infantry company.

Capt. Jonathan Hopkins

Capt. Jonathan Hopkins

Last month he was forced to leave the Army after others reported that he was gay. But the Army took its sweet time in ousting him, allowing him to serve an additional 14 months before making his expulsion official.

“Four months after being found out,” he recalls, “and 10 months prior to leaving the Army, I found myself with a boyfriend for the first time in my life, because I was no longer scared to have such a relationship. He and I attended social events and dinners with my peers. I talked about him at work. My life became one of full disclosure.

Amid all of that, the unit continued to function and I continued to be respected for the work I did. Many, from both companies I commanded, approached me to say that they didn’t care if I was gay — they thought I was one of the best commanders they’d ever had. And unbeknownst to me, many had guessed I was probably gay all along. Most didn’t care about my sexuality. I was accepted by most of them, as was my boyfriend, and I had never been happier in the military. Nothing collapsed, no one stopped talking to me, the Earth spun on its axis, and the unit prepared to fight another day.”

Lt. Col. John Nagl, now retired, also fought in Iraq. Working with Gen. David Petraeus, Nagl helped lead the drafting of the military’s counterinsurgency doctrine, which many credit with whatever level of success we’ve managed to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Jonathan is the third combat veteran I personally know who has left the Army under the terms of DADT,” Nagl says. “Collectively, they represent almost a decade of combat experience, a big handful of Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars, service as aide-de-camps to general officers and as platoon leaders and company commanders in combat, and the investment of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. They have offered blood, sweat, and tears in defense of a nation that discriminates against them for no good reason.

“This policy must end.”

In less than two hours, the U.S. Senate is expected to try to break a filibuster on a defense policy bill. The bill contains provisions that would end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that forced Hopkins and others to leave the military against their will. The vote is expected to be close, and at this point the filibuster seems likely to stand.

That would be a shame. The policy is going to change, if not now then certainly within a few years. In a poll taken in May by CNN, 78 percent said they support allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the military. The question, then, is how many more careers will be ruined between now and the inevitable repeal of this archaic policy.

How many more Jonathan Hopkins will be denied the right to serve and defend the country that they love?

290 comments Add your comment

thomas

September 21st, 2010
12:46 pm

Any who care enough to defend me and you should be applauded, regardless of who they choose to spend their time with.

Here’s to hoping all politicians see it this way.

Mick

September 21st, 2010
12:54 pm

This is a no brainer. People who volunteer to serve and die for their country, deserve the respect and honor of their fellow countrymen regardless of sexual orientation.

Normal

September 21st, 2010
12:55 pm

I agree with Thomas on this one, but I have my doubts about the vote. I fear the Republicans will not allow its passage. I fear they will want to wait until after the elections to do what is right and honorable to do. What a shame it would be not to pass today.

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2010
12:57 pm

Jay, most who post here know, but you failed to state the fillibuster is due to Democrats trying to force a vote before the military completes it comprhensive review. Another unpopluar move by Harry, good bye in November, Reid. I do think its just a matter of time before DADT is abolished. If not now, if not next year, then shortly thereafter. The review may show the old crowd has unfounded concerns of how open gays would affect the military. If the boys and girls in the military today have no problem with it, us old farts need to honor their wishes.

Red

September 21st, 2010
12:59 pm

And if this does get through the Senate and PrezBo authorizes it, we will witness yet another campaign promise kept!

Scout

September 21st, 2010
1:05 pm

Themper Fi !

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:05 pm

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2010
12:57 pm

That’s just another red herring, Johnny. The brass already knows that there will be no undermining of disipline or combat readiness except by those who are not really sure of what they are. They just want to delay the vote until after the elections in a case of political CYA.

Gale

September 21st, 2010
1:06 pm

As with integration of the military, this will soon be a non-issue.

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:06 pm

Scout,
You too, can become a queen beret now… :D

Gale

September 21st, 2010
1:07 pm

You really think the officer described in Jay’s blog speaks with a lisp, Scout? Grow up.

@@

September 21st, 2010
1:07 pm

Jonathan Hopkins graduated fourth in his West Point class, served three combat tours, was awarded three Bronze Stars (including one for valor), served as a platoon leader in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and commanded a Stryker infantry company.

Q: Let me ask you lastly, sir, you’re a candidate for Senate now, but if you were in Washington, in the Senate this week, you would be voting on a defense appropriations bill that includes, if they get it to the floor, a proposal to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy about gays serving open in the military. You’re a West Point graduate, you got a Bronze Star for your service in the first Persian Gulf War. How, sir, would you vote on that if you were in the United States Senate today?

A: You know, that’s something that the military ought to take care of internally. I support the military’s perspective on that. In fact, I don’t think that, really, frankly, the Congress ought to be socially engineering the military based upon political influence. So I don’t support that.

Soon-to-be Senator of Alaska, Joe Miller, but HE’S a nut job…a member of the radical fringe.

I dare say repeal of DADT would have played out in favor of gays in the military. The questionnaire was a logical approach. That was before some activist group got a hold of it and declared the questions homophobic.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:07 pm

…and that’s Themper fiddily fi….

Mick

September 21st, 2010
1:09 pm

scout

That really is not funny. Kind of sad actually, and I am surprised that someone with your credentials would stoop so low.

Midori

September 21st, 2010
1:09 pm

Normal @ 1:06:

:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

and I agree with Thomas as well.

Scout

September 21st, 2010
1:13 pm

Normal:

Yep. I think I’ll join the “Fighting 69th”. Their motto is “Never Leave Your Buddy’s Behind” !

But seriously, this will be (if passed) highly disruptive to the “good order and discipline” of the U.S. military ……. and ………. you will lose far more good hetersexual troops as a result.

Just my opinion. We’ll see.

jt

September 21st, 2010
1:14 pm

Even though I wouldn’t know what it was like to serve with Gay folks, (US Navy 86-94), I know that many comman soldiers and airmen are un-comfortable with the idea. It is wrong for Politicians to socially experimant with our troops.

We should do what we did during WW2 with our drafted African-Americans. Sloooooowly introduce the concept through All-gay squadrons, battalions and ships. Put 50% gay women and 50% gay men on a submarine and let them prove themselves.

We probably would all be pleasently suprised. Same with squadrons and battalions.

Leave the Marines alone though.

Just my two cents.

Gale

September 21st, 2010
1:15 pm

Scout, it will be just like integration of blacks. The military did not fall apart. Service men and women will perform professionally and continue to make themselves and all of us proud of them.

jconservative

September 21st, 2010
1:15 pm

Couple of thoughts.

” In a poll taken in May by CNN, 78 percent said they support allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the military.”

If you recall Republicans bitched because polls showed most Americans against the health care bill and it passed anyhow. Now they will ignore the American people and vote NO on the bill. And to be fair, the Democrats did and will do the opposite. Moral of the story: polls do not matter.

——————–

I do not care how the vote goes. I just do NOT want people who are gay being allowed to pay Federal Income taxes like us “regular” people.
Paying taxes is a “privilege” not a right! We can all agree on that.
Right?

————-

Gays have been serving in the US military since 1776.

So the question is not will gays be allowed to serve? The question is will gays be allowed to serve openly?

I served in the US Army in 1968 & 1969 and gays served in the Army during my term of duty. Of course, during Viet Nam the Army did not care, just do your duty was the word. During Viet Nam gays could fight and die just as well as straights.

Sounds like the same applies to Iraq and Afghanistan.

My son served in the Navy in the late 1990’s. He reports gays also served at that time.

If you are one who does not want gays to serve, please go down and enlist and that will be one less gay person we will need in the military.

Simple isn’t it?

Scout

September 21st, 2010
1:16 pm

Mick:

If you have never heard of satire and hyperbole in the opinion/editorial cartoon business ……. I’m sorry if you haven’t.

Have you ever been to a Hollywood movie that was satirical of gays (or every other group including Christians) even today? Of course you have.

So ………….. get over it.

Midori

September 21st, 2010
1:17 pm

Gale,

I was about to make the observation that the arguments against gays serving openly in the military strongly mirror those made against integrating the armed forces.

Scout

September 21st, 2010
1:18 pm

Private Gale:

What do you think about this quote ?

“Former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it well when he said, “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

NowReally

September 21st, 2010
1:20 pm

“But the Army took its sweet time in ousting him, allowing him to serve an additional 14 months before making his expulsion official.”

Wow, that says it all.

It says you can serve as long as we NEED you; otherwise we don’t want gays in uniform.

DebbieDoRight

September 21st, 2010
1:25 pm

But seriously, this will be (if passed) highly disruptive to the “good order and discipline” of the U.S. military ……. and ………. you will lose far more good hetersexual troops as a result.

How so? I’m making a generalization here, but I do believe that 85% of Americans know of, are related to, and/or friends with a gay person. It hasn’t disrupted the American workplace to have gay supervisors, peers, and co-workers, so why would it disrupt the Armed Forces? (where many may have gay sisters/brothers/cousins/etc. at home).

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
1:26 pm

Looks like President Susan Collins is seeing to it that it ain’t gonna happen…

(although perhaps we’ll hear differently from President Scott Brown?)

thomas

September 21st, 2010
1:26 pm

Midori

September 21st, 2010
1:17 pm

I understand the area you are trying to link….

The one difference( and i’m sure i will be called a homophobe for it) is that the passgae of the vote today will uin my opinion force the military to examine its housing situation differently. Guys and Girls are already sepreated in housing. Does this mean that groups will be seperated by sexual orientaiton and sexual equipment?

if not what grounds do the women of the military have to be in seperate housing, as sexual issues are the reasons as i understand them?

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2010
1:26 pm

Normal @ 1:05 pm – That’s just another red herring, Johnny.

No, its procedure. You think its a red herring because you are for repeal, want to see it now, and are concerned it won’t be repealed after November. If the military review was complete, John McCain would not be holding out.

Jay

September 21st, 2010
1:27 pm

Scout, that quote from Powell is now 17 years old.

This is from February, 2010:

“Things have changed. That was 17 years ago,” Powell said when asked about his past support for the ban during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” Powell said that he is “personally of the view now that attitudes have changed,” adding that it’s “perfectly acceptable” to repeal the law so long as the voices of the men and women in charge of executing the policy are heard in the process.

As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Powell was opposed to President Clinton’s 1993 effort to end the military’s ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, testifying before Congress that it would negatively affect the “cohesion and well-being” of the force.

Powell first issued a statement announcing his support for repealing the law in February, following the testimony of the current Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, to the Senate Armed Services Committee that repealing the law would be the “right thing to do.”

saywhat?

September 21st, 2010
1:28 pm

Scout just wishes he could give in to his deep seated gay urges. Thats why he is always loudest in opposition to gay rights.Its a pattern frequently seen among Republican politicians, and conservatives in general.All we can do is pity him, I suppose.

DebbieDoRight

September 21st, 2010
1:29 pm

Hey Midori!!! IMO if this doesn’t pass the Senate, then after the elections Obama should just do what Harry did. Make it an Executive Order and be done with it.

thomas

September 21st, 2010
1:29 pm

DebbieDoRight

September 21st, 2010
1:25 pm

supervisors and peers and co-workers are not forced to live and shower together either.

Are you also calling for the women to be integrated into the living quarters of the men?

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:30 pm

Scout, I had the opinion that women in combat was wrong too and I had what i thought was a valid reason, but I have been proven wrong. I have served with gay men in combat and out of combat and I never had a problem. And never would I give up a career because I had a gay man in my outfit. If you are doing that, you must change jobs daily. A fighting man is still a fighting man no matter who he loves.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
1:31 pm

“But seriously, this will be (if passed) highly disruptive to the “good order and discipline” of the U.S. military ……. and ………. you will lose far more good hetersexual troops as a result.”

I call bullsh*t on that.

I’m totally disappointed in the Senate Goddess with this too by the way.

Gale

September 21st, 2010
1:32 pm

Scout, it only proves that Colin Powell was not immune to prejudice against gays. There is much less evidence that the soldier standing next to you is gay than if he is black. Why should learning that he has a boyfriend be so threatening? The very fact that gays have long and decorated careers in the military, now and in the past, should be proof that there is no real problem with their presence. Frankly, comments like “leave the Marines alone.” make me wonder why so many people feel our servicemen are insecure about their sexuality.

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:34 pm

Thomas,
you are making it sound like nobody will be able to control themselves sexually. That’s a crock. Maybe, just maybe, a gay man might not find you attractive. You sound like a girl who thinks all men want her just because she’s a girl. You might be dissapointed.

Jefferson

September 21st, 2010
1:35 pm

No matter the outcome, you will still have gays in the military, like always.

DebbieDoRight

September 21st, 2010
1:35 pm

if not what grounds do the women of the military have to be in seperate housing, as sexual issues are the reasons as i understand them?

Oh come on!! Men and women are seperated because they are are…..wait for it…..here it comes……….MEN AND WOMEN!! Geesh!!! No woman would want to share a bathroom with a rusty, crusty, miss the toilet man if they don’t have to!!! Good lord!! Have you even SMELLED a men’s room before in your life?

saywhat?

September 21st, 2010
1:36 pm

Bosch

““But seriously, this will be (if passed) highly disruptive to the “good order and discipline” of the U.S. military ……. and ………. you will lose far more good hetersexual troops as a result.”

“I call bullsh*t on that.”

x2 on that. The only troops we will lose are ignorant bigots with whom the Armed Forces can gladly do without.

Mick

September 21st, 2010
1:37 pm

scout

I’m not gonna lose any sleep over your cheap shot attempt at satire?

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
1:37 pm

The thread downstairs was intersting, no? How is it even possible that the cons be dead wrong about almost everything?

Speaking of which, Scout being 17 years “behind” (get it, homophobe?) isn’t too bad. Much of his writing indicates he is about 70 behind on many other topics.

The con position on this matter is a disgrace. Yes, they are backwards looking as could possibly be, and undoubtedly they have earned the moniker as the Party of No, but the sickening thing is how they feign to Support the Troops.

The US Army and Marine Corps were stretched to the breaking point as men and women had to serve four tours in combat zones during the Reign of Error via stop-loss and other contrived ways to screw GIs and their families, and these knuckle-draggers are throwing gays out of the military because of their prudish whims?

They should all be waterboarded by Dick Cheney in a tutu…

BADA BING

September 21st, 2010
1:37 pm

I think we can all agree that we have the best military organizations that the World has ever seen. Let’s change them.

thomas

September 21st, 2010
1:38 pm

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:34 pm

1st I never mentioned me. But trust me gay men find me attratctive usually. now everyone has their own type but I was surprised how many times I was told so by different guys while I was a bar-keep in college. made some good tips that way.

I’m a sexy b*tch trust me!!!!!

If sexual attraction and the advancement of those attractions were not a viable concern then why does the Military house men and women in seperate units?

Also if it is not a problem then what is your explaination of 1/3 of all women in the military claim to have been raped?

DebbieDoRight

September 21st, 2010
1:40 pm

Are you also calling for the women to be integrated into the living quarters of the men?

Read my comment at 1:35 — that should answer your question. ASIDE: Thomas I’ve played ball all my life, basketball and soccer, since I was in elementary school. Sports are full of gay men and women. I learned early on to live with gay women and I have never been attacked or forcibly detained by not one of them. MEN however, have tried to forcibly attack me, it seems that they can’t restrain themselves when they see a lone female. Go figure.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
1:42 pm

I’m totally disappointed in the Senate Goddess with this too by the way.

Snowe, like Collins and Voinovich, have their backsides covered with perfectly reasonable-sounding procedural explanations. They won’t suffer any blowback but even if they did, it would pale in comparison to the legislative victory this would be for the Administration.

(Which is the real reason the vote probably won’t go forward.)

@@

September 21st, 2010
1:42 pm

Reid’s plans to add the DREAM Act and a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the bill upped the stakes for the bill, but they also have brought significant opposition from Republicans. Some argue the plans are bad policy, because the military has not yet completed its study on how a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would impact troop readiness. Others, though, oppose the measures because they argue Reid is simply playing politics with the defense bill.

If Reid gets the votes, the Senate will likely have to put the bill aside during its pre-election recess and take it up again after November.–Washington Examiner

Why don’t they separate the bills, and let each stand on its own merit?

Political games! The American people are tired of them.

Maybe Harry doesn’t want it to pass before the November elections.

BADA BING

September 21st, 2010
1:43 pm

It works out well to let gays serve. After all, the magazines say that the Miltary look is all the rage this year.

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
1:43 pm

Thomas, that gender based red-herring (I would never even dignify it by calling it an argument) is one of the most asinine positions one could take on this topic.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
1:44 pm

The only troops we will lose are ignorant bigots with whom the Armed Forces can gladly do without.

Conversely, there are any number of straight people who’ve likely thought better of joining the military due to this antiquated policy, who’ll feel better about making a career in the Service, once DADT is taken out and shot.

Doggone/GA

September 21st, 2010
1:46 pm

“you will lose far more good hetersexual troops as a result.”

We might lose SOME heterosexual troops, but they won’t be GOOD ones.

DebbieDoRight

September 21st, 2010
1:48 pm

thomas rape is not about “sexual attraction”, it’s about power. people can be sexually attracted to someone and, get this, they don’t try to rape them. Go Figure.

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
1:48 pm

And since when was the United States military a democracy, whee troops get to vote on policies?

Who cares if X percentage of the people in uniform are bigots, xenophobes and misogynists. For every one of them there are lots of decent people not stuck in the GOP’s Ozzie and Harriet Land.

(And for those of you who have never been closer to serving than being in the Webelos or ROTC, there is in fact plenty of those people in uniform…

Normal

September 21st, 2010
1:54 pm

Also if it is not a problem then what is your explaination of 1/3 of all women in the military claim to have been raped?

Interesting side step to the topic, but I will say this. I doubt they were raped by gay men.

Jackie

September 21st, 2010
1:54 pm

Does the military employ double standards in their recruitment and retention of personnel? I would think the answer is obvious. The link provides evidence that shows we have a serious problem brewing.

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/gay-americans/u-s-military-allows-white-supremacists-kicks-out-gay-heroes/

Carlosgvv

September 21st, 2010
1:57 pm

It’s hard to know what’s the right thing here. We could say that asking all people now in the military what they think is the answer. Is this the same as asking people in the Confederate States of America if slavery is ok? We could keep don’t ask don’t tell and pick out non-combat units, let gays serve openly, and see what happens.

Jefferson

September 21st, 2010
1:59 pm

What good is a law if it doesn’t change behavior?

Normal

September 21st, 2010
2:01 pm

Jackie,
Good article, and scary too…

Off to the Docs. Gotta get my knees shot up with corizone again…back later.

Scout

September 21st, 2010
2:04 pm

Jay:

“Scout, that quote from Powell is now 17 years old.”

Just because it’s old doesn’t make it any less true then or now.

Powell has the right to change his mind but it doesn’t make him correct now. He’s been wishy/washy a lot lately.

“The advocates of repeal say it’s a matter of basic rights. No, it’s not. There is no basic right to serve in the military. That’s why forms of discrimination we would ban in civilian life are permitted: Women have less opportunity to fight than men. The disabled are discriminated against, as are the short, the near-sighted and the old………………….. the questions about the effect of open homosexuals on unit morale and cohesion in training and combat situations remain relevant.”

William Kristol

You all keep up the pillow fight but be nice ………….. I’ll be gone for the rest of the day.

P.S.

“When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.” Winston Churchill

Mick

September 21st, 2010
2:04 pm

Historically, the greek and roman armies, who both had their turn at empires, didn’t fall due to sexual orientation issues. Purely a non issue, served up by the great chicken hawks.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:06 pm

sfd,

Part of the reason I consider Snowe the Senate Goddess is that she is moderate and seems sensible — which in the world she lives in is rare. I am disappointed because she doesn’t have to play politics in this case because she is so popular in her state, she won her last election like by 40 points (74-20 spread). I think she’s pissed because she feels she got snookered in health care.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
2:07 pm

not about “sexual attraction”, it’s about power.

Furthermore, DDR, if it’s sexual abuse that’s the concern, I can’t see how killing DADT would have anything but a net positive effect. Any time you remove a means by which one service member can blackmail and coerce another, that ought to be seen as a Good Thing. But maybe I’m missing something here.

Peadawg

September 21st, 2010
2:08 pm

“How many more Jonathan Hopkins will be denied the right to serve and defend the country that they love?”

Hopefully, none.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:09 pm

sfd,

Same goes for Collins too — she is a close second to Senate Goddess — she is Deputy Senate Goddess, and it will suit me just fine if she decides to run for POTUS some day.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:10 pm

“I’ll be gone for the rest of the day.”

Good. We won’t have to put up with his bigot self.

md

September 21st, 2010
2:10 pm

“78 percent said they support allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the military. ”

And a large percentage didn’t want that hc monstrosity and a large percentage are in favor of the AZ immigration bill.

Typical partisan column Jay – trot out those numbers when it backs up your “side”.

Disclaimer – I’m not against gays in the military, just pointing out Jay’s lack of balance.

Peadawg

September 21st, 2010
2:12 pm

“Good. We won’t have to put up with his bigot self.”

Why do people call others bigots? All a bigot really is, is someone who has different opinions/beliefs.

Jackie

September 21st, 2010
2:13 pm

@jt

Your 1:14 post is exactly what those who want to have only their opinions put in place instead of using facts to make a point.

Check out this post about the Montford Point Marines and see why you are wrong in your assertions.

http://www.wisegeek.com/who-are-the-montford-point-marines.htm

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:14 pm

Peadawg,

No, no, no — a bigot is someone who is completely intolerant of a person or group and thinks that their way is the only way.

popeye

September 21st, 2010
2:16 pm

scout….William Kristol one of the original members of the Neo con PANC
has never been right about anything..A disgusting form of human filth who smirks more often than GWB.

Peadawg

September 21st, 2010
2:19 pm

“a bigot is someone who is completely intolerant of a person or group and thinks that their way is the only way.”

Exactly, his/her position/opinion/belief is totally different from yours and they think they are right(while you think you are right).

The Boner's Tan Line

September 21st, 2010
2:20 pm

Damn it!

The Boner hates gays. The Boner loves witches.

Got it?

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
2:23 pm

Senate Goddess — she is Deputy Senate Goddess

I know, I know, the heart wants what it wants…

I look at those two and, well, I guess they figure they can wield more power (and/or deliver more goods to their constituents) as moderate Republicans than as conservative Democrats.

I don’t see anything terribly divine about this—to me, that’s about as earth-bound as it gets.

mm

September 21st, 2010
2:24 pm

Shiny objects.

Jackie

September 21st, 2010
2:25 pm

The USAF is discharging a 18 year F-15 pilot with 3 Silver Stars and over 1,800 flight hours with deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo. He was accused by his gay lover of sexual assualt to which he denied but told the Air Force investigator he was gay. Otherwise, no word of his sexual orientation or conduct has ever been an issue. Charges were dropped but the Air Force his words in an investigation to pursue the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12ask.html

Abrazos

September 21st, 2010
2:27 pm

“scout

That really is not funny. Kind of sad actually, and I am surprised that someone with your credentials would stoop so low.”

You are assuming that the credentials are real. The day he was busted on this blog for hyperinflating his importance in the Marines, and then walking it back after being properly called on it by saying he was “only kidding”, was kind of sad.

As Jimmy Stewart’s character in the movie “Harvey” said, “They tell us about the great big terrible things they’ve done and the great big wonderful things they’re going to do. Their hopes, their regrets. Their loves, their hates. All very large, because nobody ever brings anything small into a bar.” Or a blog.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
2:28 pm

And a large percentage didn’t want that hc monstrosity and a large percentage are in favor of the AZ immigration bill.

This again?

There’s plenty of polling to indicate support many of the provisions within the HCR reform that was passed. That the GOP successfully demonized what they called “Obamacare” and managed to scare a modest majority of Americans into disapproval since its passage, doesn’t change that.

Furthermore, support for repealing DADT has steady and around for quite awhile now. Actually, if you look back at polling on civil rights for gay Americans you’ll find it’s been pretty solidly “pro” going back over a decade. See also:
http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

CorpVet

September 21st, 2010
2:30 pm

So it’s up to Congress? Why not ask the enlisted men and women what they think?

Peadawg

September 21st, 2010
2:30 pm

“There’s plenty of polling to indicate support many of the provisions within the HCR reform that was passed”

Sure, a lot of the provisions sounds all nice and dandy. But premiums are going to go up faster than would before it was passed.

JIM

September 21st, 2010
2:30 pm

WOW, how about letting the MILITARY make thier own minds up on this? I belive Army Times polls show a majority in uniform don’t want gays openly in the military!

Peadawg

September 21st, 2010
2:33 pm

SFD, it’s pretty clear that with the new regulations on insurance company’s(which again, sound really nice) Obama’s plan all along was to make private health insurance so un-affordable that we’ll be begging for gov’t run health insurance in a few years.

Doggone/GA

September 21st, 2010
2:34 pm

“Why not ask the enlisted men and women what they think?”

Sounds good to me…and I think we should let them vote on whether they go into battle or not too. I mean, after all, the military IS a democratic organization, right? /snarc

CorpVet

September 21st, 2010
2:34 pm

Whoa!

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:35 pm

Peadawg,

I don’t make up the definitions. That’s not my job, take it up with Webster’s.

Jackie

September 21st, 2010
2:37 pm

@CorpVet

The US military is not a democratic organization. As you well know, when you step up and raise your right hand, your Constitutional rights are suspended, right GI?

chuck

September 21st, 2010
2:38 pm

“How many more Jonathan Hopkins will be denied the right to serve and defend the country that they love?”

HOPEFULLY ALL OF THEM.

CorpVet

September 21st, 2010
2:39 pm

Jackie, thanks for the totally unnecessary civics lesson. Trying to be PC and treat the military as a democratic organization will have severe consequences.

jt

September 21st, 2010
2:40 pm

Jackie

Excellent info. I never knew. ( i was just kidding by the way. I forgot about liberals not having a sense of humor unless it is directed at white southern boys who live in trailors).

It still bolsters my idea. African-Americans AND split-tails were slooooooowly integrated into our armed forces by first having their own units.

It worked then, and it would work now with gays and would be less disruptive. Give the gays
that are honorably, currently serving the choice to join a different unit or respect DADT policy.

Within 10 years, EVERYONE will be eligible to be DRAFTED for cannon fodder to feed our rapacious Warfare/Welfare state.

Yipppeee.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
2:41 pm

SFD, it’s pretty clear that with the new regulations on insurance company’s(which again, sound really nice) Obama’s plan all along was to make private health insurance so un-affordable that we’ll be begging for gov’t run health insurance in a few years.

heh. Oh, how I wish that the party of “We suck less than the Republicans” were really that cunning, that calculated.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:42 pm

CorpVet,

“and treat the military as a democratic organization will have severe consequences.”

Isn’t that what you were just advocating by asking what the enlisted thought?

Matti

September 21st, 2010
2:42 pm

I’ve been trying to find any quotes from our good Senator Isakson on this issue. I found OODLES of quotes about how he supports the military, their endeavors, their contractors, and giving them the “resources” they need, but no mention of the human resources that are lost by the DADT policy, and how he feels about that. He looks like an honest guy who does indeed care about our military, but I can’t verify his position. Is anyone else having better luck?

md

September 21st, 2010
2:42 pm

“There’s plenty of polling to indicate support many of the provisions within the HCR reform that was passed. That the GOP successfully demonized what they called “Obamacare” and managed to scare a modest majority of Americans into disapproval since its passage, doesn’t change that.”

Yeh, and Mrs Frankenstein had a nice set of tatas – we didn’t get just the parts, we got the whole monster………..

CorpVet

September 21st, 2010
2:45 pm

Not at all, Bosch. The only ones truly affected by a potential change to the policy are those presently serving in the military. The policy is presently DADT. Why try to be PC and change the standing policy? Morale will suffer and reenlistments will drop.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
2:45 pm

Morale will suffer and reenlistments will drop.

Oh, how you hope and pray!

Mick

September 21st, 2010
2:46 pm

Abrazos

Since we all are anonymous characters posting on a blog, I will give those that disclose personal info the benefit of the doubt.

Jackie

September 21st, 2010
2:46 pm

@jt

I would have to disagree with you concerning the slow integration of blacks into the military. I believe you are aware the first person to die in the American revolution was Crispus Attucks, a black man.

The first Medal of Honor winner at Pearl Harbor was a black cook who shot down 6 Japanse planes by himself, even though he had no training in using the M50 machine gun. After Pearl Harbor was over, the Navy sent him back to his duties as a cook, even though he wanted to be in a combat unit.

http://howdyyall.com/Texas/TodaysNews/index.cfm?GetItem=893

thomas

September 21st, 2010
2:46 pm

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
1:43 pm

Since you are a vet (or claim to be with your name) I will take your say on the matter….

So why is there a seperation by male and female in living arrangements?

Seems we could save money by housing them together. (men and women that is)

Unless you can tell me the reason why men and women are seperated?

Doggone/GA

September 21st, 2010
2:46 pm

“Morale will suffer and reenlistments will drop.”

Gays are serving NOW. They are in the bunk rooms, in the showers, in BATTLE. Is there a morale problem NOW? Doesn’t look like it, does it? Repealing DADT won’t change a thing…except they won’t be able to drum people out just because of who they ARE.

md

September 21st, 2010
2:47 pm

“Oh, how I wish that the party of “We suck less than the Republicans” were really that cunning, that calculated.”

I’d say your wish may be heading in that direction……the hc bill was passed because the dems knew they needed something passed…..anything passed…..so they passed it even after Barry said he would put jobs first at the sotu.

Big picture sfd, the dems have been pushing hc for many years and they knew darn well this may be one of a few times when they had the numbers, they brought the monster to life…warts and all knowing it might be their last chance.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
2:48 pm

CorpVet,

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes. I call bullsh*t on your “the military will die” theory.

Doggone/GA

September 21st, 2010
2:48 pm

“So why is there a seperation by male and female in living arrangements?”

Because heterosexual men can’t be trusted.

Honu

September 21st, 2010
2:49 pm

Scout — there is nothing satirical in your posts regarding gays. You know it. I know it. And everyone who posts here knows it. You, Scout, are simply a tragic little man who hides behind Christianity to condone your bigoted views.

(And Scout hasn’t left the blog for the day — he’s merely biding his time until his “homosexual=pedophile” card can be played. He’ll, of course, wait to be sure Josef isn’t here to actually catch him at it.)

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
2:50 pm

“Society has changed so much since 1993 and we need to change this policy as well,” Collins said today on the Senate floor. “But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That too is not fair.”

Oddly enough, this is a near-verbatim quote from the last Peanuts strip, c. October 1999, to feature Lucy yanking the football away from Charlie Brown.