As a gay veteran I believe in this matter the experience of foreign armies is relevant. It shows that the presence of openly gay and lesbian persons do not destroy unit cohesion nor adversly effects morale. What they do and have in foreign countries that is irrelevant is the socialism the majority of the Democrats want to foist on the UInited States.

Colin Powell, who earned four general’s stars and served both conservative and liberal presidents at the highest levels, provided valuable support last week for allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the U.S. military.

Powell agrees with President Obama’s order to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and enable Americans to serve regardless of their stated sexual orientation.

He endorsed a plan for phasing out the 17-year-old policy – as described by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – and urged Congress to do the same.

Powell’s support is significant in many ways. As an African-American who served in the position Mullen now holds, Powell took racial integration to the highest level of the military.

And he once opposed allowing gays who openly revealed their sexuality to serve in the military.

In other words, Powell’s views evolved along with those of the country, and the men and women in the military.

“Attitudes and circumstances have changed,” Powell said. “Society is always reflected in the military. It’s where we get our soldiers from.”

He’s right. A 2008 Washington Post-ABC News survey indicated that 75 percent of Americans supported allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

More than 13,500 service members have been discharged under the policy. Among them were Arabic and Farsi translators, who cannot so easily be replaced. They would, however, be able to serve in armies of many other countries.

Gays have long served honorably in the military, but too many of them have been forced to lie or cover up their sexuality – or face discharge. Too many Americans, including thousands serving in “mission critical” positions, have been discharged from the service for violating the current policy.

“No matter how I look at the issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mullen said last week.

When some of the nation’s most respected military leaders say it’s time to let openly gay Americans serve, it’s time.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100210/OPINION01/2101000/1017?p=1&tc=pg

The US military, on the other hand, is all volunteer and better because of it. Now, those volunteers are disproportionately fundamentalist Christian. Not saying that will cause a problem, only saying its possible.

It will not be good for the United States to allow Gays in the Military if it harms overall recruitment. And in the worst case scenario, and ultimate irony, the United States has to begin drafting people, including young liberal, non-military supporters of repealing DADT.

Many, if not most, of the same people who are now demanding the repeal of DADT would be the first to flee to Canada if the US had to reinstate the draft.

I am with Kathleen Parker: The military is not an appropriate place for social experimentation. Equality is irrelevant here. The one and ONLY justifiable reason to repeal DADT is if it improves military readiness. If it does, do it. If it doesn’t, there’s not only no reason, but no excuse for it.

I have praised the way the president has been moving to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT)

Dan,

Funny how you praise Obama for addressing the very same social issues that you advocate that Republicans ignore. Funny how they are “divisive” and “not winning issues” when Republicans address issues that the majority of Americans agree with them on, but they are praiseworthy when Democrats campaign and govern on social issues when Americans agree with them.

Perhaps you would appear less hypocritical if you would stop trying to pretend that your advice to Republicans is based on anything but your own personal support for social liberalism.

Trying to claim it is electorally advisable for Republicans to ignore issues that majorities of Americans in even the bluest states agree with them on has always been painfully, transparently silly from the beginning.

Sorry, I know you don’t appreciate the disagreement, or me for making it, but it must be said.

Where in my comment did I say that?
Answer: I didn’t

Good on you! 1 linked article by a rightie website!
I hope for more.

Many of the rightie folks on this site talk about the importance of showing the moonbat rights that maybe gays aren’t so bad.

I just thought that the tea party convention would be a good place for you to put your theories into action.

When are you going to do more?

That’s right, Patriotism. National pride, duty, honor, courage, commitment and the intestinal fortitude to show it. Hopefully in a year or so this will be a moot point, but until then, we ought to remind ourselves as often as possible that any man or woman in this country willing to lay it all on the line for Lady Liberty ought to be afforded the opportunity, regardless of their sexual orientation.

We have enough enemies in this world; dangerous, lethally skilled, motivated, if not fanatical combatives determined to end our existence. We need not further induce any self-inflicted wounds by dismissing intellectually competent and highly skilled service members based on antigay agendas. Make no mistake about it, the current law has left our troops with a paucity of talent in several critical areas vital to our success in the fight, and essentially our national security.
As a nation, we need to apply our best efforts into every aspect of military might. That being said, understand the military is a discerning body, and a biased organization – if you’re flat footed, can’t see colors well, are obese, physically handicapped, or cannot pass the ASVAB test, among others, you cannot serve. Period. These restrictions exist for preserving, among others, safety and performance of our troops. A personal choice on sexuality is no more applicable than a religious choice, and it does not belong in the debate. It’s flagrant discrimination. Period.

Let’s not over-engineer the mechanics in this imminent reform. The bureaucrats will change the law and sleep in warm, dry beds, safely out of harm’s way. In time, the military will follow suit. Given their brutally difficult missions, I doubt too many of our beloved troops are going to take pause to question DADT being repealed. They’re IN a real fight.

America’s lineage is rife with legislation considered preposterous by today’s standards. Pick one: women’s voting rights, eugenics, racial integrity, minorities voting, alcohol prohibition, civil rights, women on warships. These are old, tired, dare I say immature arguments that unfortunately became law; indicative of insular, polar thinking monopolized by an elite few in power to influence the masses. These laws eventually changed because we as a people evolved with the help of greater and better information, education, civic involvement, technology and time. Our President is the offspring of an interracial marriage – an illegal practice in countless states at the time of his birth. Our Speaker of the House could not have voted were she alive a century ago. Far be it from anyone today to reintroduce a bill that addresses any of these issues, as they’d clearly be dismissed as absurd, pathetic, if not shameful. Social awareness and political maturity are true blessings of liberty, and we need to celebrate them.

This is not a partisan issue, nor is it about the DOJ assessing the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of DADT. Several of our NATO allies have embraced the practice – there’s no reason we cannot as well. We have gay congressmen that vote to send our youth to war. Their performance capability as lawmakers is not diminished by their sexual orientation. Many of them have been re-elected for multiple terms.

The diversity in opinion on this issue at the highest levels of our military is not troubling, it’s a bellwether. Allowing openly gay troops to serve will no more lead to the demise of our military than when blacks were integrated into the ranks, or when women were allowed to serve on warships. There were issues with integration and there have been issues with females serving on ship, but we navigated those challenges deftly. This is about evolving. Military commanders obey the laws they are issued by the President and Congress and they maintain good order & discipline with sound leadership, incessant training and the UCMJ, whether racial, gender or sexual issues are at hand. Trust them, they know what they’re doing.

The CJCS just testified he’s served with gays his entire career – over forty years. Is anyone naïve enough to think that’s when it actually started? Five will get you fifty that gays have been serving our military as far back as the earliest citizen soldiers. It’s unlikely that any of the minutemen paused to question anyone’s sexuality when the order came to take up arms in our revolution.

I was on active duty in 1992 when Clinton was elected. Prior to his inauguration, the officers in our battalion were gathered for what we thought would be our normal weekly leadership discussion. Instead, our boss tabled the issue of gays being allowed to serve; then he sat back and watched. The ensuing debate was intensely visceral, if not utterly shocking. There were stories told of officers threatening to resign elsewhere in the military – some did. Some made articulate arguments about change and the challenge of command to effectively usher the transition. But the lion’s share of discourse was about the horror to come. Fear of the change drove some highly irrational comments that transformed men I thought were respectful, intelligent, well educated gentlemen into morons. Some were bluntly opposed and didn’t consider the options. Others laughed and scoffed at the notion as if it would never happen. One officer was screaming, fist extended, veins bulging from his neck as he cursed the day gays would serve in his unit. He was unchained as saliva sprayed during his rant. The energy & zeal in most of their logic was disturbing.

Our military prowess depends on myriad factors, not the least of which is focus. Gays allowed to serve without discrimination will be relieved of the additional burdens and stressors of the existing stigma. It is time we respected these talented professionals for the tremendous skills and unmatched courage they offer to keep us all safe. The unequivocal fact we have the most powerful and proficient military on the planet based entirely on an all volunteer force is a privilege we’ve enjoyed for decades. I find it unconscionable that any responsible military leader, after reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity and abilities of any service member, would retract their judgment based solely on the person’s sexuality.

I’m a heterosexual, Irish-Catholic, father of six, Republican, former Marine and I get it. Polls are reporting 70% of Americans support gays serving. Congress is 31 votes away from passing a bill to repeal the law. Any politician concerned about longevity ought to take notice. This is going to happen.

Every man & woman of age and able to support & defend the Constitution of the United States ought to be afforded the opportunity to do so. The document was written after all, “in order to form a more perfect union.”

Yes, I think I remember reading that somewhere.

But, then again, nothing would be.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden and South Africa are the only countries in which the legal status of same-sex marriages is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages.

Spain, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway permit Homosexuals to serve in the military.

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships were introduced in 2005. The law gives civil partners the same benefits and associated legal rights of marriage; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. The one notable exception is the use of courtesy titles by the partner of a male peer or knight. In the first year, 16,100 ceremonies took place.[84] Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to marriage.

in every Australian government jurisdiction a wide range of rights to de facto same-sex couples is exactly equal to those afforded to de facto opposite-sex couples is provided. These rights are gained without registration, under a status called “unregistered cohabitation”. Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples are recognised as de facto partners in a wide range of legislation in every Australian government jurisdiction, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation. wiki

Try answering the topic for once.