And as thus, she just doesn’t “advance the ideals of the modern American conservative movement, the basic tenets of which are limited government, a strong national defense and judicial restraint.” Rather, she wants a big tent that only includes those who share her point of view. She points her finger at one or two people and then paints millions of others with the same brush. That’s bigotry. Pot meet kettle.

Unfortunately, politics, and too often “PC” politics, colors too much of the operational world. Just as it is taboo to have an honest discussion or investigation to the adverse effects on unit readiness caused by “unintended” pregnancies while deployed, I anticipate there will be similar off-limit areas in dealing with issues unique to (or predominently concerning) gay service members. I agree that this is not neccessarily sufficient to justify a ban on either women or gays, but full and equal integration would be much easier without the “equal except when…” lobby weighing in.

If I were gay patriot, I would be insulted that you used this particular thread to promote such crude attempts demean, dehumanize and to promote bigotry towards groups of “others” in order to futher your poltical cause.

Submandave, I appreciate your response. And I think I understood your point here. I see the problem that you observed. But that’s the problem that needs to be fixed. For example, I don’t believe you’re suggesting the way to fix the problem with women that you described is to ban women from the military.

There are plenty of gay men who are qualified and willing to serve in the military as openly gay men and would follow the rules. It seems to me that keeping the current policy because there would be some gay men would exploit the rule and the military may have difficulty dealing with a protected class would be a shame. To me, it would be like saying that men should not be world leaders, because some of them are hideous cretins.

There may be other reasons to keep DADT. I’m just saying that if there are problems that come up indirectly as a result of ending DADT, similar to problems that exist even now, as you suggest, then those problems need to be addressed and fixed.

And I think that demanding that GOP Senators, Governors or anyone else leap back and scream, “Get away from me you freaky God people!” just to be darned sure that no one can possibly think anything other than that they believe their constituents who *are* New Earthers are the very spawn of Satan… I think that’s a bit much.

Maybe the US military really is different from the Australian, Canadian or UK militaries in a fundamental way. I doubt it though, and although the problems you raised did crop up – and still do – they’re no worse than existing problems regarding fraternisation in a mixed-sex environment. In Australia, we’ve dealt with the same-sex issue for well over a decade now, and have just about got a good handle on trans issues as well. Imperfect, but getting better, and I think we’re actually better in that area now than either the Canadians or the UK. Certainly far better than we were 10 years ago.

As for the growing anti-scientific bent of the GOP, I’ll just quote Gov. Sanford

Gov. Sanford: Well I think that it’s just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real “chinks” in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being* is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of … in essence, destruction.

Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression*. Uuummm.. in the natural order of things. So, it’s in fact, it’s against fairly basic laws of physics* and so I would not have a problem in teaching both * Uh, you saying this is one theory and this is another theory.

When the Discovery Institute is used as the sole source of scientific background for most senior GOP politicians, we have a problem.

Gov Palin was libelled for believing in “Jesus Horses” etc. as part of aco-ordinated smear campaign. The thing is, such ridiculous things become believable when Senator Graham can say

Let me tell you — Ron Paul, I like, I admire him, but I don’t agree with him all the time and he’s not the leader of this party.”

And hecklers can say “Yes he is!” and not be lone voices. When there’s serious talk about rehabilitating crazy old Pat Buchanan, it doesn’t give me warm fuzzies about the future direction of the GOP.

And now I’ll have to go chase up the URLs of sayings from other senior GOP figures, especially the Texas ones about New York Bankers and Evil-utionists. For my sins, I’ve had to fight the good fight in comments pages in many local papers. Some of the comments, not by crazy individuals, but senior GOP state legislators, have been scary. I don’t like the way things are trending, and I think the backlash against the unprecedented incompetence of the Obama administration is going to strengthen the Wingnuts rather than the sane.

IMHO, you should get a mirror and ask yourself if you aren’t projecting your own bigotry on those whom you claim to be bigoted. I can point to any number of gay activists whom are bullies and who discredit the entire gay movement. If I were to focus on these high profile gay activists who have acted badly and then use them as an example of why gays should be pushed from the fight for limited government etc, you would be right to be offended that I had misrepresented the beliefs and behavior or the majority of gay individuals. Why then, should the majority of Christians not be offended at your attempt to smear them with the Christian boogey men whom I suspect you have never met, but believe lurk behind every tree?

You might as well be a troll because your goal is to divide and conquer. I suggest you decide what is more important to you. Is it more important to keep the values of freedom of thought and limited government or is it more important to you to have Christians “accept” your lifestyle. There is a big difference between fighting for acceptance versus fighting to end discrimination. The former requires that you change the way people think and the second requires that you change the way people act, regardless of how they think.

I don’t care if you accept my Christian beliefs, but I do care if you take action to prevent me from worshipping as I please. Likewise, you have the right to use the rules of the republic and democracy to fight for gay marriage and to include gays in the military. And others that have different beliefs have the right to fight against you. In a way it is much like the abortion issue. Do you think that those who either agree or disagree with abortion should be elimated from the tent to help push for limited government and the freedoms secured in the Bill of Rights? Because to do so would be silly. It is a moral issue and agreement of thought will never be reached. So why worry about what others think and focus instead on how they can work together to achieve goals common to both of them?

I hope those who have read my comments before realize that I’m not hell-bent on preserving DADT, but my basic conservative nature leaves me wanting an honest appraisal of pros and cons and not just political posturing before taking action one way or the other.

As for equal treatment, I don’t see why that should be a problem. If there is a risk of a charge of sexism, then that’s another problem that has nothing to do with sexual orientation and needs to be dealt with.

My concern with repealing DADT is that any action taken will be donbe exclusively in a political vacuum without any consideration of legitimate issues. I would like the following openly and honestly discussed before taking action, but I’m not holding my breath:

- Privacy. Is it a reasonable expectation for a service member to not want to be the object of unwanted sexual attention or is the criteria set at unwanted sexual advances? If the latter, then why do we maintain separate berthing/sanitation for males and females? Or is it only female members that can reasonable expect this degree of privacy? Why or why not?

- Equal treatment. Will violations of good order and discipline related to consentual gay sex be treated the same as hetro sex? I have serious reservations it will. I woul dhave to agree with ken from sc, that semi-open lesbians are much more common in the military than semi-open gay men, and that even these days shipboard dalliances between women are often purposefully ignored since: 1) there is no risk of pregnancy, and 2) the risk of having to defend against charges of sexism just for raising accusations against a woman. With DADT gone, one now has to also worry about being accused of engaging in a gay witch hunt every time you bring a fellow up on NJP for playing hide the salami while underway. This sort of double standard is always contrary to good order an ddiscipline, and needs to be honestly discussed.

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”

Would be bery difficult for a lead senior Republican to speak out against Gay Marriage and incur the wrath of Cheney. . .

but their are those who voice their opposition to gay folk and SSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY28jU8oCqM

My concern is, for example, senior Republicans who profess to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that homosexuality should be criminalised, and that Evil-utionists are part of some New York Banker conspiracy.

Examples of any “senior Republican” who has said one of these things please? Ron Paul doesn’t count.

I guess we should all go back to the left where we can find solace in the fact that it is run by corrupt Chicago Gangsters and a president, who sat in Rev Wright’s church and has the same view on same-sex unions as Miss Ca.

I’ve never been on the left, so can hardly go back. And I wrote:

This leaves conservatives of the “broad tent” kind out in the cold, as the Democrats are even less welcoming, and the President thinks “God is in the mix”.

I didn’t mention that he’s a Demagogue, a product of the corrupt Chicago machine, is OK on national security but a complete disaster on foreign policy,makes bothe the Harding and Grant administrations look like models of rectitude, and those are just his good points. Because I’ll take that as read, and that most in the DNC are even worse (Pelosi anyone?).

My concern is, for example, senior Republicans who profess to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that homosexuality should be criminalised, and that Evil-utionists are part of some New York Banker conspiracy.

And BTW, I’m Australian. I just want our ally to be led by someone who is competent, and neither Kleptocratic faux-Marxist nor Christian-Talibanesque.

The same discipline that made the Army quick to dispense with segregation (under orders from the CinC) should make them willing to endure DADT until such time as the Commander in Chief decides to dispense with it.

http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/

It is still very relevant.

Kristo, of course not. When the assumption is that one is straight, no one needs to explicity mention he is straight. So when the straight male talks about his wife and children, or girlfriend, or that women he finds attractive, it does not become conscience to the observer that the person is being as blatant about their sexuality as a gay person who talks about his boyfriend.

The day will come when it will be the same for gay persons as you believe it is for straight persons. But we’re not there yet. Not as long as DADT is in place, different recognized status for relationships, and a culture that still keeps these differences in place.