As yet another example that while Democrats in today’s Washington may be out of the loop on any number of issues, at least they do get it in when it comes to repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).
Our pal James Kirchick reports that Joe Lieberman will become the “chief sponsor” of legislation to repeal DADT:
Next week, the Connecticut senator will announce that he’s taking the lead on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the 1993 law that prohibits gay people from serving openly in the armed forces. Since implementation of the statute nearly 20 years ago, the military has discharged some 14,000 qualified men and women, many of them serving in critical jobs like Arabic and Persian translation.
Nice to have a man well-regarded by the military at the forefront of this effort.
The irony, of course, is that the Left hates Lieberman. (Including much of the Gay Left.)
Indeed, which makes this…interesting. Still, I’ll believe it when President Obama puts pen to paper in signing the repeal act.
Gay Patriot, I’m with you on 99% of all issues. This is the one single issue where we disagree.
I’m a Navy Vet. Please explain to me how allowing Gays in the Military isn’t inherently discriminatory against Straights?
Don’t I have the privacy right to shower and bunk with individuals who I’m sure won’t be gawking at me? And if not, as a straight male, shouldn’t I have the right to shower and bunk with females? And gawk at them?
Fair’s fair.
If you want the Military to become a complete Swingers Club, everything goes, than that’s consistent. But if you support putting homosexual men in the same berthing spaces as straight men that is entirely unfair and grossly discriminatory against straight males.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
God what I wouldn’t give to get one, just one single Gay guy to answer the above question. They want. Cause they know that I’m right. Everyone I’ve ever asked this too, has run for the hills. It completely and utterly destroys the entire Gays in the Military foundation. It’s like a nuclear bomb going off in the entire Gays in the Military movement.
You simply cannot discriminate against Straight Males and call that Fair. Get ready for a moutain of lawsuits and enormous problems with straights claiming discrimination if Gays are allowed to bunk with them.
Eric,
I’d point out that first we have a volunteer army, despite democrats introducing legislation to reinstate the draft.
Second, I’d point out that you seem to be in the minority in your opinion, no matter how well you articulate it. Thank you for being honest and up front, though 11 minutes is hardly enough time to expect a response.
I’ve not had a chance to ask my little brother, who like you is a vet, his two c-bills on the issue, but based on the number of gay vets posting here, you may have already been oogled in the shower, and survived.
Or *not* ogled. I exercised self-control when I was on the college swim team; I would figure the military’s existing gay population to do likewise.
True, ILC, I was just hoping to give nightmares.
Maybe we could add this to the EIT. “Hasan. You need to work with us, or Sgt Smith there will tell you you have a pretty mouth.” 😉
My friend, thank you for the response. Yes, I’ve already been “oogled” by gay dudes in the shower. And quite frankly, it wasn’t the most pleasant of experiences. I’m a pretty good looking straight guy. So, it matters to me perhaps even more so than your average less handsome straight.
Again, that’s a bit beside the point: My question still stands. What about the fairness of the issue.
If I have to put up with being oogled by gay dudes, why shouldn’t straight female sailors have to put up with me oogling them?
Where’s the fairness???
You are a friend and great ally in politics. So, please excuse me for saying this: But this policy is extremely discriminatory, and gays, even rightwing gays such as yourself, are being very hypocritical in this regard. I think deep down you realize this. Perhaps I’m the first one bold enough to point this out.
I was in the Navy for 4 years. Here’s the deal on gay dudes in the Navy. They’re pretty good guys. They know to excercise self-control… almost always.
Problem comes when they, like other sailors, start drinking. You get a gay sailor dude drunk and he just let’s loose. His gay side completely comes out, and he starts hitting on his straight buddies, even sometimes forcefully.
I know it’s very politically incorrect to say this, but you ask anybody in the Navy, and straight dude with gay friends. And they’ll tell you the same: Yes, so and so, really nice guy, great Patriot, great US Military member. But when he gets drunk he becomes completely gay and becomes a disruption to his shipmates and friends.
There are assholes in every group. Shall we also mention straight military guys who get drunk and fight? Or who get drunk and hit on women – sometimes forcefully?
“But when he gets drunk he becomes completely gay and becomes a disruption to his shipmates and friends.”
How is that different than anyone getting drunk? I will bet that you when you are drunk, you become a disruption.
I played football and wrestled yet I didn’t oogle or get boners on the mat. Straight gays need to get over themselves and realize that not every gay guy wants them.
Also, note that we are talking about people who are already there. The question is, what happens next? What will DADT repeal make worse? Or for that matter, what will DADT repeal make better?
Existing gays in the military won’t have to lie. Also, some small number of straights won’t be lying that they are gay to get out of their service contracts. Two improvements. Now, what will DADT repeal make worse? For example, will it realistically *increase* ogling or unwanted advances?
As a non-veteran I am willing to be guided by military service people in this matter. And different ones are saying different things. Eric Dondero says one thing, Admiral Mullen says another, Nick (ColoradoPatriot) says another, John (Average Gay Joe) says another.
Look, I’m a Veteran. I gave 4 years of my life to my country. I have three medals, including service in a War Zone (upper Persian Gulf aboard a Guided Missile Destroy against Saddam Hussein).
I’m pleading with you all to reconsider your position on this. It’s not as clear cut as you believe.
Look, I’m a LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN. You don’t get any more tolerant than me. I’m on the forefront of fighting for the rights of Gays who are being slaughtered by Islamo-Fascists worldwide. I fight against religious rightist in this country who are bigoted against Gays.
What I’m saying is that having Gay men in close quarters with Straight guys is entirely impracticle. Worse, it’s inherently discriminatory and puts straight men in a position of being discriminated against. And don’t even talk about all the PC garbage that’s gonna come along with it. My gosh. After this is implemented every single Straight Male is going to have to watch every little thing he says. No more use of politically incorrect terms. Not even criticism of gays. Or else, it’s judicial proceedings and getting kicked out of the Navy.
It’s going to be an absolute nightmare.
What incentive would any straight male have for every joining the Military after gays in the Military is implemented?
Yes, there are assholes in every group. Yes, straight guys hit on straight women when they’re drunk.
But do these women have to be forced to share bunkspace with these men? Are they forced to take showers with them? Disrobe in front of them? Use toilet facilities in front of them?
YOU CANNOT PUT GENDERS TOGETHER IN CLOSE QUARTERS THAT ARE ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER WITHOUT SERIOUS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
And what about the wives and girlfriends of these straight men? Is it fair to them that their boyfriends and husbands be forced to share quarters with gay guys who will be gawking at them, and could possibly even force themselves on them?
How will these wives and girlfriends feel knowing that their husbands/boyfriends will be out to sea for 9 months sharing bunking space with homosexual males?
I’ve indicated my openness to different veteran’s viewpoints and I can’t tell who that remark is intended to address… so it must not be for me.
Because men find homosexuality within themselves unacceptable, they try to repress it by joining groups which find homosexuality unacceptable. Joining a conservative church or the military allows you to repress and ignore the homosexual feelings you wish you didn’t have.
I think the reason men are so fearful of homosexuality becoming accepted in the church and in the military is that if homosexuality is accepted there, then they are going to have to take another look at their own homosexual feelings. If Jesus says being gay is OK, then I can’t really hide anymore. If wearing a uniform doesn’t serve as a cover anymore, then I’m going to have to be transparent about what I am.
I think that every man who wants to keep gays from being open in the church or in the military is basically saying, “Let me hide here! Don’t make me have to consider self-acceptance!”
And before I exit this thread for the night: I would like to distance myself from what Ashpenaz just said. While I may not side with Eric Dondero’s concerns, I think he should be able to express them without jerks indirectly (yet unmistakably) trying to raise questions about his sexuality.
So, implying someone is gay is a bad thing? That seems like a bit of internalized homophobia coming to the surface. I don’t consider it an insult to imply that a man is attracted to other men–it’s a compliment. Especially if he’s as cute as he claims.
I don’t consider it an insult to imply that a man is attracted to other men–it’s a compliment.
Ashpenaz, I normally don’t consider that an insult. But saying someone is repressed? Yes. I don’t believe one has to be a latent homosexual to have such concerns. Further, I try my best not to play Internet psychologist.
Eric, you do bring up some good points, and I appreciate your input. Since I am not a veteran, I do not have the perspective that you have. Nonetheless, I’ll share my opinion.
While military life is clearly different than civilian life, it still mirrors many of its longstanding customs. We have separate bathrooms/showering facilities for men and women. And it is also customary to have separate sleeping quarters for men and women on occasions when strangers get together and there is a need to share, quarters such as hotel rooms. As such, it is no surprise that the same is true in the military. On the other hand, we don’t have the same separation for gay and straight men, or gay and straight women.
So to answer your question, if straight males will be discriminated in the military (once DADT is removed), then it’s already happening in civilian life. From my vantage point, straight males are doing just fine. I am confident the same will be true in the military.
How will these wives and girlfriends feel knowing that their husbands/boyfriends will be out to sea for 9 months sharing bunking space with homosexual males?
I’m not sure these wives/girlfriends will be worried about this, unless they suspect that their husbands/boyfriends are gay, and will act on it with the gay service men who may hit on them. I think they are more worried that their husbands/boyfriends will cheat on them with another woman.
“I think they are more worried that their husbands/boyfriends will cheat on them with another woman.”
Or, they may simply be praying that they’ll make it back home.
Eric,
Yeah, I’ve been hit on by guys. I’ll admit I was more amused than offended (maybe it’s the antidepressants).
As to ‘forcing themselves on someone’ isn’t that rape? Isn’t that what the UCMJ (or optionally a blanket party) is for? I’d hope for the military to avoid the PC BS and actually apply the law equally.
Disclaimer: I’m a civilian, so I have zip experience in military situations, so I’ll admit I’m speculating.
Livewire, I’ve been hit on by women, and I’ve been more amused than offended as well. 😉
The same as they have now: self-sacrifice and service to country. Those who cannot serve with folks different than they are and get along should pursue other career goals – which includes any gays who may mistakenly think that repeal of the ban will mean white parties in the barracks. Most gays in the military will continue to remain semi-closeted once the ban is lifted, only sharing their personal lives with a trusted few. The key difference will be that they no longer have to fear being outed and forced to leave the service. Mind you, I still think this is all academic and that the ban will not be lifted at this time. Eh, so I’m cynical. Sue me.
Agreed, that’s a stupid and uncalled for charge to make because someone expresses concern. Trust me, Eric isn’t the only one who will be raising concerns as the change is implemented. We’re going to hear more until the matter is resolved which only time, leadership by command and interaction between openly gay and straight servicemembers will do.
That’s all I’m looking for. Those who cannot control themselves shouldn’t be in the service regardless of their sexual orientation anyways and the UCMJ, especially the favorite General Article 134, is there to take care of them.
Thank you John,
And please, folks, keep the discussion civil with Eric. It’s not like he’s Levi or bob. I can appriciate his viewpoints while disagreeing with them.
OT, Eric, what did you think about the co-ed Washrooms in mediocre sci-fi like Starship Troopers or the excellent Battlestar Galactica? Do you see those as feasable?
By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Monday, February 22, 2010; 12:49 PM
WASHINGTON — The top commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone – gay and straight – should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we are still able to fight our wars.”
The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno (Oh-dee-AIR-no) is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue.
Odierno helped lead a troop buildup in Iraq that reduced violence and has paved the way for a planned reduction of U.S. forces.
Odierno told reporters Monday that he hadn’t had much time to think about whether gays should be allowed to serve openly. He said the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been a “non-issue” to him.
More game-playing from The Jerk.
Pat, exactly. The insult is in changing the subject to questions about the person’s sexuality – as though the person (Eric Dondero here) is not only unworthy of having their comments addressed, but too dumb even to know their own business.
P.S. Ash: If you *meant* to insult Eric Dondero, for some reason beyond my imagining… then at least explain your reason and stand by it. As I am always willing to do, say for example when I insult some cheap leftist who over-praises Obama. Don’t pretend you meant well, unless you’re apologizing (cancelling what you said). Don’t pretend there was no insult.
I meant well. There was no insult.
I honestly think that seeing gays accepted in the military and in church is going to force a lot of men to take a look at themselves. If soldiers and pastors can be gay and accept themselves, they are going to have to do the hard work of accepting what they had been hoping to keep hidden behind a uniform or a cross. Note that this is simply a statement not directed at anyone in particular. Really. Well, maybe this one Air Force guy I know (if you’re reading!!!)
I’m really not mean-spirited–I’m just practicing witty bon mots.
I’m wondering about all the other implications. There is a strong support network for soldiers families. I can imagine if this is changed to support gay or lesbian families especially with domestic partnerships and gay marriages in some states. The gay lifestyle will be accomodated once DADT is repealed. It’s not as if it merely neutralizes expulsion. It will go the other way and snowball.
anon,
That shouldn’t be a reason to repeal, DADT, though I agree it will be a satisfying side effect.
Ash, I’m gonna be honest. I still don’t buy it… BUT… (1) It is not my place to drill you or keep up a confrontation, and (2) I should have omitted the name I used. It was unnecessary and poor style on my part, for which bit I apologize.