While I’m heartened that Joe Leiberman, seemingly the Left’s only remaining hawk cogent foreign policy thinker has introduced legislation to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’m afraid I can’t be as optimistic about its chances as my host and co-blogger.
I am a big advocate for the repeal as a matter of national security (and no, not because of the meme that it’s hindering recruitment or the fantasy that we’re losing some imagined ungodly number of Arabic linguists because of it). You can find a lengthy long-winded explanation of this stance here, a series I wrote just over four years ago that I believe still stands up (at least as a demonstration of my position on the matter). It gives me no pleasure to pour cold water on the prospect of changing this policy. However,
Given the (to repeat myself) Charlie Foxtrot that Democrats have made of the health care catastrophe, win lose or draw on that issue, what Senator or Representative would be willing to stick his neck out for gays in the military in this atmosphere? (Carl Levin, his co-sponsor isn’t up for re-election until 2012, and Vic Snyder who’s sponsoring in the House won his seat witn 77% in 2008) Safe Democrats will sign on to this and support it fully. But that species is definitely endangered in 2010.
What’s ironic, if you’re willing to see it, is that the sheep fellow-travelers in the “gay” “rights” “community” “leadership” who have been so full-throated in their exhuberance over the president’s Stalinization of health care plan are actually partly to blame, in fact. Were it not for this overreach by the Democrats (led by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi), there may still have been some political captial left in their bank to try to push this through. However, having blown their credibility with the American populace, they’ve also lost much of their authority when it comes to leading.
I’ll be very elated if I’m wrong about this, but bottom line, don’t look for this to happen anytime soon. And that is a shame.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
I continue to believe that what we call “DADT repeal”** will happen on the military’s/Pentagon’s timetable. Obama will look to them for cover, as any Republican President would. If they’re on board, it’ll happen. Some of them seem to be (e.g. Admiral Mullen).
(**not sure if the term is accurate; I wouldn’t want to “repeal” DADT in the sense of going back to what we had before it)
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli and beyond, our armed forces have performed SPLENDIDLY without giving a stamp of approval to gay sex. Why the hell do they need to it now?!
Nick,
I think your analysis of the situation is spot-on.
If the President had any balls he’d issue a new executive order to make it happen. He doesnt need Congress to make this happen. President Clinton enacted DADT without Congress using an EO; it should be reversed the same way.
However, how dare they say it is okay for us to die for our country but not be afforded the same equal compensation for doing so by denying the issuance of marriage licenses to us.
Seane-Anna @ 2:
Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military while out of the proverbial closet does not involve giving any stamp of approval to gay sex. Sexual orientation and sex acts are two different things, and homosexuals can live celibately (or be virgins) just as easily as heterosexuals.
Besides, why does the military need to give its official stamp of disapproval to gay sex?
James Younce @ 4:
No, he didn’t. DADT was enacted by the military in pursuance of an act of Congress (which Clinton signed into law).
“Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military while out of the proverbial closet does not involve giving any stamp of approval to gay sex.”
I was using “gay sex” sarcastically to refer to homosexuality itself. Sorry that wasn’t clear. Anyway, you’re wrong, CLD. The repeal of DADT is about one thing and one thing only: forcing society further down the road to unequivocal, celebratory endorsement of homosexuality, and a corresponding contempt for traditional values and the people who hold them. And that’s the truth.
You’re right, apologies.
“Besides, why does the military need to give its official stamp of disapproval to gay sex?”
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe to honor this nation’s moral heritage? And we DO have a moral heritage, in spite of the feverish efforts of social liberals to eradicate it.
No Seane-Anna, it’s about equal compensation & representation for taxation & service.
If I’ve been in the desert for 18 months, & we get to go on leave in the big city nearby, and I wanna find the nearest gay bar, find the cutest guy, & go to the nearest hotel & have wild sex without fear that I’ll lose my job cuz someone saw me – that is neither celebratory or equal. Especially knowing my bunk mate is doin the same only with a girl.
Sean-Anna, this begs the question: what the HELL are you doing on this blog? You add nothing to this with your tiresome garbage installments. You must enjoy wasting your time. Go bother someone else (like Daily Kos) and give us a rest.
First, Monsieur Michaud, the name is SeanE-Anna, not Sean-Anna. And maybe I should go to the Daily Kos. At least there the hatred and contempt for traditionalism would be up front and honest, not hidden behind a mask of “conservatism”. But then again, why should I go to DK when I can get the usual left-wing response to disagreement, i.e. personal attacks, right here from commenters like you? Why don’t you try addressing my concerns instead of just insulting me?
Seane-Anna (see, I spelled it correctly-yeah, like it matters), your past statements are insulting to patriots who love and defend their country and who happen to be gay. When you have NorthDallasThirty and American Elephant ( 2 of the most conservative commentators here) disagree with your screeds, you have to realize just how far out you are. You want respect lady, well dammit, give it! It’s a 2-way street. I’m not going to bother addressing your “concerns” until you come here with respect for our military members, gay and straight alike.
Seane- Anna,
Just to illustrate how illogical your thinking is: we allow divorcees in the military, that does not mean we give our “unequivocal, celebratory endorsement” to divorce.
We now allow people who have committed some crimes in the past in the military, that does not mean we give our “unequivocal, celebratory endorsement” to crime.
We allow liars, adulterers, fornicators, drinkers, gamblers, etc in the military, that does not mean we unequivocally celebrate and endorse lying, adultery, fornication, drinking, gambling, etc.
Your argument is not only wrong, it isn’t even logical.
And while you are trying to rout all sin out of the military (because we know that you must abhor all sin and not just some sins), you might want to know that Jesus has not as yet shown up at a recruitment center, so the military will be a little lacking for personnel when your holier than thou crusade is done.
Oh, and the lumber yard called — they want their inventory back — when you manage to get it out of your eye.
*if* Ear Leader had a spine or detectable testosterone level in his blood, i believe he could issue an EO eliminating DADT, as Truman did outlawing racial discrimination in the military.
however, he has neither, nor apparently anything else worth mentioning, other than a vacuous face i never wish to see again and a whiny voice that makes me wish my hearing loss was worse, and therefore i have to agree with the analysis by CP.
that he won’t man up and do it is just one more reason for me to despise him. i’m just glad i got my twenty in before he got into the C-in-C’s office.
Seane-Anna @ 7:
Uh…. I think it was I who was unclear. I was issuing a complaint about the equation (endlessly made reactionary Christians) between homosexuality and gay sex. That is why I said “sexual orientation and sex acts are two different things.” How often do we hear heterosexuality reduced to the reproductive act? Not very.
This is, in a word, nonsense.
The effort to allow homosexuals to serve in the military openly is about two things: being fair to homosexuals who want to serve in the armed forces and can do so to the country’s good, and ending the government’s stigmatization of homosexuals as intrinsically unqualified for military service.
No glorification of homosexuality (either as condition or lifestyle) is implied, nor is any needed to compel the effort. All that is needed is the desire for the government to stop treating it like leprosy, and out-of-the-closet homosexuals like contagious lepers.
I fail to see how this desire for simple decency amount to contempt for our country’s traditional values. And given your great concern about being held in contempt for your “traditional values,” you should be sympathetic to those who don’t wish to be held in contempt for their psycho-sexual nature. (If you’ll forgive the big words.)
Seane-Anna @ 9:
Oh, come on! Just how far do we have to go to honor our moral heritage? Do we have to give official stamps of disapproval to married couples making love in woman on top positions? (They used to pass laws against such things not that long ago.)
The problem, Seane-Anna, is that for a “god-fearing, believer in my Creator” conservative like yourself, honoring a moral heritage means clinging to bits of religious dogma that used to have popular appeal.
Unfortunately for you, the United States wasn’t founded to enforce items of Christian dogma, popular or otherwise.
Soooo… if the military doesn’t perform inquisitions to begin rooting out unbelievers, is the military giving a “stamp of approval” to witchcraft?
Seane-anna == troll.
One question. Is your bunkmate a girl?
As I’ve been saying Nick, so no surprise that I agree with you.
Please God let me be wrong.
Seane-Anna: do you have military experience? Have you served your country? I don’t, that’s why I’ll gladly defer to those that did. Julie the Jarhead, where are you?
Ha ha, Jim…What am I? Chopped liver? 😉
Jim, I did serve time in the military – from 1942 to 1946 with only one week furlough before I was sent overseas and another while waiting in Germany to come home. That week I was suposed to spend in Paris but after one day, I came back to Germany where loving was free. What part did homosexuals have in winning that war – plenty, because we were left alone up to the very end. That was when things changed.
Don’t forget that there’s two components to implementing DADT;
1) They have to change the law that mandates the policy.
2) The military lawyer-types have to go into the Uniform Code of Military Justice and revise/delete an numbers of provisions regulating “conduct unbecoming” and the UCMJ’s version of the “sodomy clauses” which includes many forms of heterosexual sex as well all forms of homosexual sex…it even includes having a heterosexual affair with a married person as a prosecutable offense. Yes, Adultery is still illegal in the US Military, even if the military person’s single and having the affair with a married civilian of the opposite-sex.
There’s also a whole slew of regulations about where and when the uniform is to be worn while off-post or off-duty…or even on leave. For exmaple, if off-duty personnel have to wear the uniform off-post, then they’ll have to wear it while at the local gay bar. Do they get in trouble if they take their shirt off? That’s being out-of-uniform or in-disarray-in-public and subject to a potential disiplinary hearing. For an officer that could be a career-killer. The military needs some time to either cut some slack into the UCMJ, or revise it in-detail when it comes to “conduct unbecoming an officer”.
Ooops, sorry CP. I shouldn’t have singled out Julie. Whoever served in the military is the perfect person to answer to that Seane-Anna troll. My bad.
Helio – no; it’s a guy. The straight leaders haven’t figured out why they group people together. Is it based on equipment or based on attraction?
Wow really blaming the Democrats for not repealing this. Now the Democrats are too blame for ratching up our hopes but let’s see how many Republicans are signed on as a co-sponsor? Let’s see that would be zero. Nada not one. Imagine that.
Actually this won’t happen because the Republican Party you are all so fond of will filibuster it then when they pick up seats at mid-term they will 69 this so fast. Talk about drinking the kool aid.
Far be it from me to stereotype about sexual preference based on a photo, but reading about the case of Captain Holly Graf reminded me of why explicitly “prohibiting discrimination against gays”, as Lieberman said his legislation would do, may not be the wisest idea.
(Even if Graf happens to be 100% hetero, the fact that she made it all the way to command of a warship suggests that she was craftily exploiting policies against gender discrimination.)
The long-standing pretense that “oral sodomy” is NOT a commonplace and
expectedinsisted on part of heterosexual relationships — however silly — seems to be working okay. So everyone could simply make-believe that homosexuals never do anything but kissing and “heavy petting”, without revising UCMJ Article 125.That’s definitely in violation of the UCMJ!
excuse #198,888 by Democrats why ” we wanted to pass it but we just couldn’t at this time. But keep donating money to us and voting for us so we can change things eventually”
I’m straight, I could care less one way or the other if it passes or not. It won’t ever change if your counting on Dems to do it. You can bank on that. They are not about to give their cash and vote cows what they want. What would you need them for anymore if they did? Over and over they have had opportunities to help gays and over and over the dog ate their homework, they got a flat tire and their was an earthquake.
Oh, maybe you can explain to me how Chairman Obama pretends to give a rat’s ass about repealing DADT while openly arguing FOR it in the courts?
BTW, thanks for saving the world along with freedom and liberty.
And if the liberals actually gave a rat’s ass, how come they ALL didn’t co-sponsor it? Why so few co-sponsors? And Franken’s probably coked out of his mind, so I dunno if he would actually count.
Really that’s your argument? It’s ok for not one Republican to support because not all Democrats aren’t signed on? Wow!!! Not every Democrat is for repealing DADT. Again I ask you again why no Republicans, not one.
As for the president he gets no pass from me. He had shown no courage on the issue.
People like Seana-Anne really piss me off. Why the hell do they need to give the stamp of approval now? Let me tell you brainless one, because gay men and women have ALWAYS served in the military and are just as responsible for the “splendid performance” of the military as are straight soldiers. I served honorably in Vietnam, as did my late partner of 30 years. He died three years ago of injuries he received as a result of his three tours of duty in Vietnam as a Marine gunny sarge. So get it through your bigoted head that gay people have always, and will always, be part of the military. They serve as honorably as any straight person, are as loyal as any straight soldier and are as subject to the UMCJ as anyone else is. You seem to think that we are only controlled by our dicks, not our oath to serve and honor the Armed Services. How dare we think we can be patriots! How dare we? and how dare you open your stupid brain to insult us.
This is really revealing. Don’t march lockstep with the “gay agenda”conservatives” here will bite your head off faster than any Kossack would.
Gays serve in the military. They a” and the gay ppear to do just fine even under DADT. Gays enlist in the military even under DADT. If DADT is so diabolical, why would any gay person ever enlist? So, why do we need to repeal DADT unless the ultimate objective is to do what I said: lead us further down the road to the normalization of homosexuality. Such normalization won’t be achieved by repealing DADT alone; that’s just part of a larger strategy which includes advocacy of homosexuality in public schools and forcing gay marriage on the public, among other things. You have to be the most dishonest person on earth to deny that “gay rights” is and always has been about getting society to endorse homosexuality and criminalize non-endorsement. As I said, the repeal of DADT is just one step down the road to that glorious future.
If you want to believe in “gay rights” that is your right, but be honest about what that makes you. It makes you a liberal (at least socially), NOT a conservative. Conservatives extend tolerance to gays, not endorsement of homosexuality. Gay activists always say they want tolerance. They have that but it doesn’t seem to be enough. So if it’s not tolerance gays really want, what is it? What do you call it when people yell “Bigot!” at those who don’t give a thumbs up to their sexual lifestyle? What does opposing a particular sexual lifestyle have to do with bigotry anyway? Are gays who oppose polygamy bigots? Yes, if we’re going to apply to polygamy-opposing gays the same standard–it’s inherently and maliciously intolerant to object to anyone’s sexual nature/behavior–that’s applied to homosexuality-opposing straights. But this is GayPatriot and I know that won’t happen. Instead, I’ll get a million brilliant minds telling me I’m all kinds of wrong.
I’ll keep coming back here, though, because, believe it or not, I actually like this place.
Dearie, of course you will. See my explanation at #20.
John, thank you again for your service. And your partner’s.
#39 Seane-Anne. What the F**k are you drinking anyway woman? You are an illogical argument in a convex universe. Did you even read what you wrote? Hope you’re enjoying the gin.
John and ILC, you both just proved my point. I don’t agree with you on “gay rights” so I must be stupid, illogical, bigoted, you know, all the left-wing talking points. I can’t simply have a different point of view, certainly not one that’s grounded in any degree of thoughtfulness. The only thoughtful, kind, loving, logical, position for you is that gay is GOOD, gay marriage is GOOD, repealing DADT is GOOD, and failing to adhere to that “orthodoxy” is VERY, VERY, BAD. If anybody should be over at Daily Kos it’s the two of you (and Monsieur Michaud).
I’m just using your weak-assed logic, Timbo. You suggested that Republicans are not in favor merely because none have signed on as cosponsors. Therefore, the fact that so relatively few liberals have signed on must mean that there’s an ass load of liberals who support it.
Besides, I highly doubt that their reasons for signing on are as altruistic as you hope they are.
Should have said DON’T support it.
The Democrats keep their victim plantation organized the way they want it. The victims get a few strokes and an occasional token to serve in the big house, but mostly they are warned about what a terrible world is out there beyond the fences of the plantation.
The victims can walk off the plantation any time they like. The only price they will pay is having all the other victims call them oreo or self-loathing or some other group specific epithet.
When the Navy put women on the ships, it had its hands full of knocked up sailors who cost the Navy needless medical and training/replacement expense.
There was no shortage of men (who don’t get knocked up) that could only be filled by turning to hiring women to fill out the open slots. No, the women on ships was purely a social change which had zero to do with the military mission.
Not all women let themselves get knocked up. Some very good soldiers are women. One general recently ordered his women not to get knocked up. Howls of protest ensued. Protests that had zero to do with the military mission.
So, from my vantage point, there are sensible gays who can and should serve. There are gays in the candy story types who would probably delight themselves into a stupor within moments of enlisting. This is the social conundrum. But it seems that DADT is rarely addressed in terms of the military mission.
Seane-Anna @ 39:
My dear Seane-Anna, you just don’t get it. Of course, I didn’t really expect you would.
I do not know why someone knowing himself to be a homosexual would join the military. That is, I don’t understand, never having been in the situation, how the desire to serve in the military can override concerns about such a policy. I only know that in many instances it does. That does not mean, contrary to what you imply, that serving under the policy is pleasant or comfortable for homosexual service members. Of course many people join prior to recognizing their homosexuality, and they are affected by DADT as well.
You insisted (@ 7) that:
Now the “celebratory endorsement” of homosexuality has given way to the “normalization” of it. I told you why most DADT opponents hold their opposition: they consider repealing the ban to be the decent thing to do. For such people (which is most people nowadays) I suppose homosexuality is already normalized. Given that you couple your complaint to normalizing homosexuality to a fear of growing “contempt for traditional values and the people who hold them,” I say this has much to do with your objection.
Gay rights. Gay rights. Gay rights. When did we start to discuss this vacuous phrase?
Doubtless some opponents of DADT are primarily interested in promoting what they consider “gay rights,” or in the promotion of homosexuality. I suppose some others may be interested in furthering what Rush Limbaugh calls the “chickification” of the military. So what? Every political movement has people who support it for the wrong reasons.
Tolerance is what you’re offering? Telling people they are especially unqualified for something because of the fears and prejudices of others is your notion of tolerance? Having the government bar homosexuals from certain jobs because not doing so is approving of gay sex and thus denying the country’s “moral heritage” is your concept of tolerance? I’d hate to see your notion of intolerance, Seane-Anna.
This is your bigotry keeping you from seeing your bigotry. Current law doesn’t stop people with certain sorts of sex lives from serving in the military, it stops people who are same-sex attracted (sexually active or not) from serving and being honest at the same time. Your equation of an individual’s homosexuality to a lifestyle is bigotry pure and simple.
You are too free in throwing around the label ‘social liberal.’ You’re assumption that anyone who disagrees with DADT is therefore a “gay rights” activist is faulty. Your problem is you equate culture conservatism with your own brand of religion. This is the constant fault of the reactionary religious.
I am not a cultural leftist. I do not crusade for gay rights or any other from of special interest rights. I do not want the schools to advocate for any sexuality, and I don’t want to see same-sex “marriage” forced upon an unwilling public. (I don’t believe in abortion or no-fault divorce laws either.) So please watch how you throw around that ‘you’re a social liberal’ claptrap.
I could point out that gays have a long history and tradition in the military in the US, as long as they were discreet, Look at General Washington’s chief of staff for example. Everyone knew, but he didn’t flaunt it around.
His mythological counterpart not as discreet, but then he also was bugnut crazy.