Gay Patriot Header Image

End Soon For DADT?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:45 pm - May 24, 2010.
Filed under: DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

Following a story that the White House is in discussions today with Capitol Hill leaders discussing moving forward with a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Possible action by the end of the week.

Will Charles Djou get there in time to help lead Republicans in voting for repeal?

More details to come.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from a Secret Undisclosed Alternate HQ)

UPDATE: Reading a little more on the tactics, it looks as though Congress would pass, and likely President Obama would sign, within the Defense Authorization Bill for this year, a provision that repeals the ban, but it would be written so as to not take effect until 90 days after the Pentagon submits its report on the policy, due out sometime in December.

The confusing point here is that, in order to repeal the DADT policy, a repeal is required of a portion of Title 10 US Code. I’m not an expert in law or legislation, so I’m not sure if there’s a way to pass a law to change US Code, but make its implementation contingent on the Pentagon’s report. How do you write that?

The following law is repealed, you know, contingent on whether a report that’s coming out in December sometime says what we want it to say. But if it does look like we’re hoping, this is the change we want to make: …

I have every reason to believe the Pentagon’s report is going to be favorable to repeal. But I just don’t know how you can write legislation contingent on it.

Then again, this is a body that passes legislation without even reading it (and tried to pass laws without voting on them), so I wouldn’t put anything past them.

Share

70 Comments

  1. There is no lawful way to pass as a law something that says, “This other law over here is repealed, in these parts, effective on New Year’s Eve, 2010, if and only if this other things happens.” But, as you point out, this is a Congress that passes laws without reading them, without even voting on them, and with amendments which are mostly blank paper to them. So, I’m sure the “Hopey-Changey” Congress will figure out how to do whatever it wants.

    Comment by Ike — May 24, 2010 @ 8:43 pm - May 24, 2010

  2. “Will Charles Djou get there in time to help lead Republicans in voting for repeal?”

    Pffft…

    “On Capitol Hill, the third-ranking House Republican promised unified GOP opposition to lifting the ban. ”The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle,” said Mike Pence, R-Ind. “

    Comment by Tano — May 24, 2010 @ 8:46 pm - May 24, 2010

  3. Y’all still havent figured out who your real enemies are, eh?

    check mirror

    Comment by Tano — May 24, 2010 @ 8:49 pm - May 24, 2010

  4. I think it’s as this post says (and Ike):
    The bills are passed without reading, without publishing and without full GAO/CBO accounting. Surely it’s only a matter of time before they begin using magic disappearing ink (from the bottomless taxpayer inkwell), the cloak of invisibility (to be worn with the sash of crass incredulity) and all written with a Spire-O-Graph (just TRY to follow the lines, I dare ya)…

    Comment by rodney — May 24, 2010 @ 8:54 pm - May 24, 2010

  5. Oh, and if I may, Pat Sajak, I’d like to substitue ‘Dopey-Mangey’ for “Hopey-Changey”, please. Thank you.

    Comment by rodney — May 24, 2010 @ 8:56 pm - May 24, 2010

  6. Looks like the Dems are going to do just enough to get the gays back on board in November. Whatever happens with regard to actual real policy, I don’t think they care. Just get the gays back on board!

    I suspect there will be a LOT of this sort of thing over the next few months. They really need their “core constituency” to come back into the fold. Lies will suffice.

    Gonna be an ugly summer.

    Comment by less — May 24, 2010 @ 8:56 pm - May 24, 2010

  7. “On Capitol Hill, the third-ranking House Republican promised unified GOP opposition to lifting the ban.”

    Notice how you didn’t mention the Democratic chairman of the HASC who refused to allow a DADT repeal amendment during the markup.

    The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle,” said Mike Pence, R-Ind.

    Guess what? To the gay left, this is a liberal political agenda. Their leaders denounce every war and oppose every military buildup, and yet they’re supposed to concerned about military readiness?

    Comment by NYAlly — May 24, 2010 @ 8:59 pm - May 24, 2010

  8. Tano:

    3.Y’all still havent figured out who your real enemies are, eh?

    check mirror

    That sort of blatant ignorance, misdirected aggression and idiotic hyperbole is exactly why the repeal of DADT has such a slim chance of ever gaining traction among defense-minded conservative voters and legislators (you know, the sort of people whose support you’ll need in order to get it repealed).

    It is narrow-minded buffonery such as your ignorant and childish remark that completely misses the point of why we have a military in the first place.

    To answer your question, Tano, YES I have seen the enemy. I saw him while I was in Afghanistan.

    Damn. It never ceases to amaze me how self-destructive and spiteful the gay Left is, even to the point of its own ultimate detriment.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — May 24, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - May 24, 2010

  9. The law that must be changed is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This forms what is civil and criminal law within our military. Currently, some actions, such as sodomy, are illegal. Without changing UCMJ, it’s like the medical marijuana laws – you can grow all you want in certain states, but you’ll still be arrested, prosecuted, et cetera.

    That said, the cynicism of this administration and Congress places it on the same level as the Brezhnev regime. Is anyone else raising the BS flag?

    Repeal only AFTER elections? Why after – So that gay activists and their wallets can push the Dems through another election?

    Repeal is dependent upon conditional responses? And if the Pentagon or the HASC/SASC just says no? The Pentagon is essentially all about maintaining the hyper-testosteronic-uber-machismo culture scares the crap out of every other country on the earth. But beyond advice, it has no authority in repeal. But, the HASC and the SASC – they have the power. Do they have the votes? Apparently not until AFTER this election cycle.

    Comment by DaveOnotinSF — May 24, 2010 @ 9:14 pm - May 24, 2010

  10. ColoradoPatriot,

    You wrote above that “the repeal of DADT has such a slim chance of ever gaining traction among defense-minded conservative voters and legislators (you know, the sort of people whose support you’ll need in order to get it repealed).

    Instead of just attacking the “gay left”, wouldn’t it be more effective to reach out to Republican members of the House & Senate — people like Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), and introduce yourself as a staunch conservative who supports repeal of DADT? Or better yet, introduce yourself as a member of the military who is a staunch conservative, and supports repeal of DADT?

    If HRC and other “gay left” groups are trying to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire on this DADT issue, why can’t gay conservative groups such as GOProud do the same with Republicans? Repeal of DADT is clearly stated on GOProud’s list of legislative priorities on GOProud’s website. How much clout does GOProud, or gay conservatives in general, have with Republicans?

    Comment by James — May 24, 2010 @ 10:26 pm - May 24, 2010

  11. 3.Y’all still havent figured out who your real enemies are, eh?

    Yes, the real enemies are the radical Muslims who want to put gays to death. Not Republicans who have just reservations about letting members of a community that has overwhelmingly demonstrated an amazing lack of personal responsibility into an army that demands a great amount of personal responsibility.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 24, 2010 @ 10:49 pm - May 24, 2010

  12. A repeal of DADT might be implemented by amending the UCMJ to remove both the DADT provisons and the related “sodomy”-clauses that regulate the sex-lives of military personal gay-or-straight from the UCMJ and shift the new implementation of all the related issues to regulations issued by the local regional commands. Then any future “violation” could be addressed as “a failure to obey a lawful command”, rather than as a direct violation of the UCMJ. An example is the outright prohibition on any sexual relations in the Iraq/Afghanistan theater, which doesn’t apply outside that theater.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 24, 2010 @ 10:55 pm - May 24, 2010

  13. James:
    That’s a fair question and I’ll blog an answer to it soon.

    Dave and Ted:
    You’re both mistaken about the UCMJ. Nowhere in the UCMJ is homosexuality mentioned. There is no change to the UCMJ that would have any effect on DADT. The only change that would affect DADT is a change to Title 10 US Code.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — May 24, 2010 @ 11:00 pm - May 24, 2010

  14. Dave and Ted:
    You’re both mistaken about the UCMJ. Nowhere in the UCMJ is homosexuality mentioned.

    Just to elaborate on what Nick said, Article 125 of the UCMJ effectively bans fellatio, cunnilingus, rimming, and buttfucking, without regard for the gender or marital status of the participants. It does not, however, make a crime out of the desire to perform any of these acts — even with a same-sex partner. Also, the Article refers very specifically to orifice penetration, “however slight.” So to all appearances, the language doesn’t prohibit two guys from dry-humping each other with their flies still zipped until they both jizz their drawers — even though that is manifestly a homosexual act.

    In short, even after DADT is gone, the anti-sodomy code could still be left in place indefinitely, while everyone pretends that homosexuals never do anything but dry-hump with our clothes on. (However ridiculous it might seem, this pretense has for the most part worked pretty well when it comes to rampant oral sodomy among heteros.) So it’s really not logically inevitable that the UCMJ must be revised along with the repeal of DADT.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 25, 2010 @ 2:30 am - May 25, 2010

  15. Dave and Ted:
    You’re both mistaken about the UCMJ. Nowhere in the UCMJ is homosexuality mentioned.

    Just to elaborate on what Nick said, Article 125 of the UCMJ effectively bans fellatio, cunnilingus, anilingus, and anal sodomy, without regard for the gender or marital status of the participants. It does not, however, make a crime out of the desire to perform any of these acts — even with a same-sex partner. Also, the Article refers very specifically to orifice penetration, “however slight.” So to all appearances, the language doesn’t prohibit two guys from dry-humping each other with their flies still zipped until they both jizz their drawers — even though that is manifestly a homosexual act.

    In short, even after DADT is gone, the anti-sodomy code could still be left in place indefinitely, while everyone pretends that homosexuals never do anything but dry-hump with our clothes on. (However ridiculous it might seem, this pretense has for the most part worked pretty well when it comes to rampant oral sodomy among heteros.) So it’s really not logically inevitable that the UCMJ must be revised along with the repeal of DADT.

    For that matter, as Nick says, Title 10 is the ONLY statute/regulation that must necessarily change. For example, DADT could in principle be repealed without establishing bureaucratic procedures to “ban anti-gay discrimination” — something that Sen. Liebermann promised to do a couple months back, in language that raised a few eyebrows here on GayPatriot. Also, Congress could end DADT without going anywhere near the issue of dependents benefits — like clinic and commissary access and survivor pensions — for same-sex partners. (This would have to be dealt with eventually, but not necessarily in the near post-DADT future.)

    And I would interpret the “provisional implementation” as meaning that these and other wrinkles related to how the repeal unfolds, but not the fact of repeal itself, will be “contingent” on favorable language in the Pentagon report.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 25, 2010 @ 2:44 am - May 25, 2010

  16. Note to Nick: I think there might be a half-finished version of my post #14 caught in the filter — so if there is, you can just delete it!

    -Rob

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 25, 2010 @ 2:46 am - May 25, 2010

  17. Hmmmm. I’m still pondering the strategy here. This reeks of desperation to me. Just as Dems are harping on Arizona to try and get out the illegal alien vote this fall, I dont think they would be doing this if they didnt think they had to to get out the homo vote. They will follow this up with warnings that Republicans will overturn it if elected. Cus if nothing else, one thing’s for certain with these Democrats — they aren’t acting on principle.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 25, 2010 @ 3:01 am - May 25, 2010

  18. Damn. It never ceases to amaze me how self-destructive and spiteful the gay Left is, even to the point of its own ultimate detriment.

    It amazes me how liberals believe that the best way to win friends and influence people is to piss in their Cheerios.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 25, 2010 @ 6:46 am - May 25, 2010

  19. Nick,

    Might I be so bold to include governments who fund terrorists and their puppets

    Y’know, the kind of anti-semites that Tano supports.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 25, 2010 @ 6:50 am - May 25, 2010

  20. Legislation can indeed be enacted that states it doesn’t become effective until X,Y,Z happens. It’s happened before and the constitutionality of such an approach has never been successfully challenged as far as I know. This is probably the best way repeal of DADT will come about. As for Article 125 of the UCMJ, that will indeed need to be repealed or reformed, which may be done in this legislation. Yet it’s not clear what effect the 2003 Lawrence decision has on this as the Court of Military Appeals hasn’t tackled cases where consent wasn’t involved as far as I know. Eh, hoepfully this will all be moot anyways for both straights and gays on the sodomy article at least.

    Comment by John — May 25, 2010 @ 7:51 am - May 25, 2010

  21. After reading the comment from Throbert McGee (#14) regarding the UCMJ I wonder if perhaps gays might be housed together with a stern monitor who supervises their out of the closet acts of sexual desire and whacks them with a bucket of cold water if they go too far?

    Everything I have read from liberal gays about ditching DA/DT is mighty mum on the topic of gay sex. Is that because the gay left is committed to being openly gay in the military, but equally committed to the military mission as the highest priority and sexual desire sublimated to the nth degree in order to carry out the mission?

    Somehow, I hardly think Tano has any regard whatsoever for the military mission. Period. Therefore, I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror and demands DA/DT repeal. Does he really see a Tano in full battle dress?

    Comment by heliotrope — May 25, 2010 @ 7:59 am - May 25, 2010

  22. I wonder if perhaps gays might be housed together with a stern monitor who supervises their out of the closet acts of sexual desire and whacks them with a bucket of cold water if they go too far? — Heliotrope is a pink-purple tint that is a representation of the color of the heliotrope flower. Another name for this color is vivid lavender. …

    for being such a ‘homophobe’ you certainly entertain a fair amount of homoerotic imagery sounds like you wouldn’t mind a little vouyerism as the stern monitor. but hey there are folk like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber who sternly condemn homo sex hu ality while collecting so many images of the gay left.

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 8:55 am - May 25, 2010

  23. 1. I would prefer the repeal happen in a way that doesn’t create the kind of backlash that came in 1993. That would only make things worse, not better.

    2. Am I to believe that straight soldiers are regularly being discharged for oral sex? Get real.

    3. Does anyone think that more than a handful of enlisted soldiers in the field or living in the barracks are going to come out? Mostly this will just end the damage that occurs when someone else outs them.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 25, 2010 @ 9:30 am - May 25, 2010

  24. So it’s really not logically inevitable that the UCMJ must be revised along with the repeal of DADT.

    When you factor political realities into this, yes it is. There is no way that such an article will survive for long is DADT is removed. Already it is largely ignored for heterosexuals and even for the most part homosexuals, unless consent isn’t involved or if Command wants to use 125 as the proverbial sink to throw at an errant servicemember. This is not an ideal situation in respect for the UCMJ when it’s being routinely ignored regardless of what happens to open service for gays. If DADT is repealed I would expect Article 125 to be re-written or removed entirely within a year or so afterwards.

    Also, Congress could end DADT without going anywhere near the issue of dependents benefits — like clinic and commissary access and survivor pensions — for same-sex partners. (This would have to be dealt with eventually, but not necessarily in the near post-DADT future.)

    Indeed. This will not change as long as DOMA remains intact and the law of the land. I do not see DOMA being repealed by Congress for many more years nor do I believe the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case has a prayer once it reaches SCOTUS, as much as I’d like otherwise, so this isn’t an issue for now. What could be the first challenge to this is the lawsuit from MA I think which contests Section 3 only of DOMA as it pertains to same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. That has a shot with SCOTUS and if it succeeds, by no means guaranteed, then the military might have to start dealing with this sooner. For now though I don’t see this as an issue in the near term.

    Comment by John — May 25, 2010 @ 9:34 am - May 25, 2010

  25. for being such a ‘homophobe’ you certainly entertain a fair amount of homoerotic imagery sounds like you wouldn’t mind a little vouyerism as the stern monitor. but hey there are folk like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber who sternly condemn homo sex hu ality while collecting so many images of the gay left.

    Really? That’s the best you can do, to call anyone who criticizes gay and lesbian behavior a closeted gay?

    That’s an excellent example why DADT is a good policy. Gay-sex liberals like yourself who see nothing wrong with promiscuity, public display, and violating laws are booted out of the military right away. Do you really think the Folsom Street Fair and the other values you and “mainstream” gays espouse, like dressing up children and taking them to sex fairs to show off for you, are conducive to good military discipline? Do you think the military needs the HIV rates that so-called “activists” like yourself have produced in the gay community?

    Tell us, rusty, do you really want to stop HIV? If so, why do you attack those who criticize the promiscuous behaviors that spread it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2010 @ 11:55 am - May 25, 2010

  26. What is GOProud and the multitude of gay tea party members doing to get openly gay folks in the military and help pass this?

    Dan, Bruce, Nick and the rest of you, now is your time to shine and show the “gay left” that you are accepted members of conservative America and that you have influence to sway those who wish to take away your right to serve this great country.

    Comment by gillie — May 25, 2010 @ 12:59 pm - May 25, 2010

  27. It is not a RIGHT to serve in the U.S. armed forces. It is a PRIVILEGE!

    Comment by rodney — May 25, 2010 @ 1:02 pm - May 25, 2010

  28. AH MISS RITA BEADS (NDT) first let’s start with a gallup poll (it’s just a poll) Americans’ Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx

    Second many folk have admitted to homoerotic fantasy play but that hardly leads to that GAY thing. Maybe bi sex hu all. as far as the closet status. . .well that’s up in the air.

    Third, yes the gay parents ( parents Gary Beuschel and John Kruse ) made a a very serious error in judgement in taking their children to an adult event. But with over 20 years as a children’s advocate and as atrained Court Appointed Special Advocate CASA (guardian ad litem) I am very well aware of many parents who make very serious errors in judgement when it comes to the upbringing and care of their children, but seriously Miss BEADS, you are really beating a dead horse with the repeated use of this example. YES NDT this was a big whoops but it has been almost three years.

    And finally, I am not sure but you can clarify, DADT is good policy?

    in regards to HIV. . On top of my time working with children and families I also spent a fair amount of time working in the HIV arena starting back in 1990 as a Red Cross HIV educator and volunteer care provider servicing low-income and homeless HIV+ folk in Seattle 20 years ago, 2 years for CASCADE AIDS PROJECT in Portland, 7 years as a N-stage provider at OUR HOUSE of PORTLAND an HIV Hospice, 5 years as a sexual health educator in Spokane and am currently volunteering with folk in the HIV arena in Seattle. I am very well aware of the ongoing issues of HIV.

    But seriously, DADT is going to keep HIV in check? But you go girl!

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - May 25, 2010

  29. And rusty tries to make NDT’s comments about NDT, as opposed to rusty’s slurs and accusations about heliotrope.

    And gillie, any ‘influence that Dan/Nick/Bruce et. al have isn’t because of their sexual orientation, anymore than mine is. That’s the problem with liberals, they really can’t see how people can’t be put in boxes.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 25, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - May 25, 2010

  30. oh my g-d LW, talk about – That’s the problem with liberals, they really can’t see how people can’t be put in boxes. – and NDT’s constant use of his boxes. —-the other values you and “mainstream” gays espouse—

    for buck sake please. sorry, but heliotrope (with little letter) certainly slings his slop around just as much.

    sorry for the terrible regression where I did my share of slinging but hey, was and still am having a spunky kind of day.

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - May 25, 2010

  31. should be –for buck’s sake

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 1:49 pm - May 25, 2010

  32. These DEMs are good! They’ve come up with a way to vote for repeal, before the upcoming election, and then have created a way to avoid implementing it after the election. Brilliant! Of course, I expect all the stupid gay folks to once gain fall for this pandering. It would be a lot more impressive it Congrees voted to just get the repeal done with no caveats. Until that happens I don’t consider the issue closed and all, and I sure won’t base my vote on anything less than that.

    Comment by Hunter — May 25, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - May 25, 2010

  33. Hunter,
    What will you do to get it passed? Will you give money to candidates who want it repealed? Will you withhold support from a pol who works to thwart it? Will you write letters? Will you knock on doors?

    Its to for you guys to step up and stop being free riders.

    Comment by gillie — May 25, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - May 25, 2010

  34. rusty,

    I’ve disagreed in the past with the broad brush approach, including when NDT uses it. You and I may disagree on some (a lot) things, but you’re mostly civil, which is why I try not to generalize. I do think turning the coversation to NDT is counter productive to the discussion at hand.

    Do you realize that you’re on of the few people on the other side of the arguement who conceed that NDT’s example is an example of something horribly wrong? And please understand, I am applauding that condemnation.

    gillie’s post is typical of the trap I see more from lefty posters (Tano, gillie, Levi, et al.) of trying to ‘win’ the argument by defining people, whether it be gillie’s ‘use your gay influence’ (with the unspoken statement that ‘evil conservatives won’t listen to their token gays’) or Levi’s ‘you’re all idiots and I need to force you in my direction’. Once someone stops seeing people as, well, people, and instead as managable catagories, he may think he won the arguement, but instead he’s lost his soul.

    Like I’ve said elsewhere, NDT’s example doesn’t matter to me whether it was a pair of men, women, or a straight couple, it was wrong and whatever became of them and the kids anyway?

    I do think your accusations against heliotrope did cross the line into attacking the speaker. Now we’re all guilty of that, but I’d like to think that you and I both ‘know’ heliotrope well enough to know when he’s decending into satire, which is how I read the first paragraph.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 25, 2010 @ 2:27 pm - May 25, 2010

  35. Livewire,

    How is asking someone to step up to the plate a “trap?” Many gay folks on this site have created the “gay left” strawman as someone to mock. Now here we have a situation where the folks on the left are pushing for something that many on this site are for.

    There is no “trap” here or some point to win. This is an issue that has a direct influence on the lives of service people who have fought and are fighting for this country.

    Its time for the folks on this site to follow the lead of Jimmy LaSalvia and work WITH the left on this issue to get it resolved.

    Write your congressman, knock on doors donate money and be heard

    Comment by gillie — May 25, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - May 25, 2010

  36. Y’know, if the gay left truly was concerned about “military readiness”, they’d be going to Republicans and saying “even though we disagree about some issues, thank you for getting a strong military to defend us from the most homophobic regimes in the world.”

    The fact that they’re not says a lot of what they’re truly after.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 25, 2010 @ 4:02 pm - May 25, 2010

  37. How is asking someone to step up to the plate a “trap?”

    Because, gillie, you won’t step up to the plate yourself.

    You have demanded with your screaming fits that anyone who says they oppose gay marriage, who says that it is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman, and says “God’s in the mix” is a homophobe and a hatemonger who should be publicly denounced.

    So do it for your Obama.

    You have stated that if anyone in a party supports the FMA, that party is homophobic.

    So do it for your Obama Party.

    Now, you can start whining and spinning about how their disagreement with you on homosexuality isn’t as important as their stances on other issues.

    And then you can go right back to your demands that people oppose and attack candidates for no other reason than disagreeing with them on one issue.

    And this is the finest example of your hypocrisy:

    This is an issue that has a direct influence on the lives of service people who have fought and are fighting for this country.

    Who, according to you and your Obama Party, are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” who should be harassed, spit upon, and called murderers and baby-killers.

    Why not step up to the plate and condemn your Obama for his endorsement of such attacks on military members?

    Why not step up to the plate and condemn your fellow gay liberals for their endorsement of such attacks on military members?

    Hm? Are you freeloading again, gillie?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2010 @ 4:15 pm - May 25, 2010

  38. Thanks LW I will watch myself if I descend into satire. :)

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 4:25 pm - May 25, 2010

  39. Who, according to you and your Obama Party, are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” who should be harassed, spit upon, and called murderers and baby-killers.

    NDT, I think you’re going too far here. That was, IIRC, in Berkley, the capital of the loony-left. I don’t think you can compare them to conventional Democrats. I live in a college town that’s full of antiwar lefties, but even they have respect for the troops who fight them.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 25, 2010 @ 4:43 pm - May 25, 2010

  40. Nice try, rusty.

    You see, you started in the right place:

    Third, yes the gay parents ( parents Gary Beuschel and John Kruse ) made a a very serious error in judgement in taking their children to an adult event.

    But then you blew it.

    but seriously Miss BEADS, you are really beating a dead horse with the repeated use of this example.

    Which, coupled with this:

    But with over 20 years as a children’s advocate and as atrained Court Appointed Special Advocate CASA (guardian ad litem) I am very well aware of many parents who make very serious errors in judgement when it comes to the upbringing and care of their children

    demonstrates that it doesn’t matter what people do as long as they’re gay and lesbian. Instead, you just attack the people who point out what they’re doing.

    Next example:

    On top of my time working with children and families I also spent a fair amount of time working in the HIV arena starting back in 1990 as a Red Cross HIV educator and volunteer care provider servicing low-income and homeless HIV+ folk in Seattle 20 years ago, 2 years for CASCADE AIDS PROJECT in Portland, 7 years as a N-stage provider at OUR HOUSE of PORTLAND an HIV Hospice, 5 years as a sexual health educator in Spokane and am currently volunteering with folk in the HIV arena in Seattle. I am very well aware of the ongoing issues of HIV.

    Oh believe me, your results are impressive, and they just keep on getting better.

    The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

    The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

    The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

    Of course, we all know what the problem is; the Federal government isn’t giving you enough money to hold fisting demonstrations, tell teenagers to have promiscuous sex, and rant against Republicans and conservatives whose evil mind-control powers are what make you tweak yourself silly and go have unprotected sex with twenty other men.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2010 @ 4:52 pm - May 25, 2010

  41. NDT, I think you’re going too far here. That was, IIRC, in Berkley, the capital of the loony-left. I don’t think you can compare them to conventional Democrats.

    Actually, you can.

    And besides, the Speaker of the House is an Obama Party member from the Bay Area who fully supported and endorsed this.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2010 @ 4:57 pm - May 25, 2010

  42. my oh my NDT you just get going and going and going. . .Read the BEADS

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 5:06 pm - May 25, 2010

  43. sorry NDT but back to DADT

    Jewish groups urge repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
    May 25, 2010

    (JTA) — A coalition of 10 major Jewish organizations is urging Congress to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.

    The coalition, led by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, sent a letter Tuesday to Congress.

    We believe this policy is unjust and become an anomaly among western nations,” the letter said. “Advanced militaries throughout the world, including many of our NATO allies and Israel, allow gay, lesbian and bisexual personnel to serve openly. It is time for the United States to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and we encourage you and colleagues to act swiftly.”

    In addition to JCPA, which this year adopted a resolution establishing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as one of the organized Jewish community relations community’s top priorities, the letter was signed by the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, National Council of Jewish Women, Union for Reform Judaism and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

    “Since the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” public opinion on this issue has changed dramatically,” the letter said. “In 1994, only 44 percent of the Americans agreed gay and lesbian service members should be allowed to serve openly. Today, 75 percent of Americans, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans, believe openly lesbian and gay citizens should be able to serve in the U.S. military.”

    http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/05/25/2739321/jewish-groups-urge-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 5:26 pm - May 25, 2010

  44. Of course, we all know what the problem is; the Federal government isn’t giving you enough money to hold fisting demonstrations, tell teenagers to have promiscuous sex, and rant against Republicans and conservatives whose evil mind-control powers are what make you tweak yourself silly and go have unprotected sex with twenty other men.

    And of course, when officials actually close down steam rooms that somehow always end up covered in disease-ridden semen, they’re denounced as “prudish” and “sex-negative.”

    And besides, the Speaker of the House is an Obama Party member from the Bay Area who fully supported and endorsed this.

    True enough, although Pelosi didn’t walk the walk when it came to cutting off funds to fight the war.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 25, 2010 @ 5:27 pm - May 25, 2010

  45. (JTA) — A coalition of 10 major Jewish organizations is urging Congress to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.

    Why should Jewish groups with no military experience have any business telling the military how it should run?

    Comment by NYAlly — May 25, 2010 @ 5:30 pm - May 25, 2010

  46. Gillie, what I don’t support is having the DEMS bring this up before an election that they seemingly are going to get slammed in just to shore up the Gay vote, then after the election scamper away from implementation based on a report they commissioned. The Dems have controlled the government for 16 months and haven’t taken the simple vote to overturn DADT. As usual, they punted with a “commission” and it seems like they are going to use it’s report to chicken out, again. I don’t support politicians based on what they say they are going to do. Only the votes count. And believe me, my reps know exactly how I feel about the issue.

    Comment by Hunter — May 25, 2010 @ 5:30 pm - May 25, 2010

  47. As to gillie’s words… Let’s not forget how he was more than willing to assume that the latest terrorist attack was from a Christian.

    And lets not forget he’s supported the racist liar John Lewis, with no evidence, but his past record of race-baiting.

    Gillie is so willing to believe that people who disagree with him are racists homophobic terrorist wannabes. He believes this to the point that he can’t stand the proof that they’re not.

    Hells, my mom’s a lefty, and I’d never assume that she and her partner would be anywhere near FSF, let alone bring kids. OTOH, gillie believes that he’s one civil rights law away from America becoming Iran. Even though he supports The President ‘normalizing’ relations with Iran and I’d assume the Taliban and Hezbolla too.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 25, 2010 @ 6:41 pm - May 25, 2010

  48. oops so sorry NYally, tis a little dated but

    ‘Don’t ask’ survey published

    By Brendan McGarry – Staff report
    Posted : Thursday Feb 11, 2010 6:01:31 EST

    Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today.

    An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

    Results of the survey were released after Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress it is time to end the law banning open service by gays and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that derives from the law.

    The Military Times exclusive is based on survey results and in-depth interviews with military leaders, both gay and straight. These career-oriented officers and enlisted troops are among those who would largely be responsible for implementing changes to the Clinton-era law and policy. . .

    And in a first since the Army Times Publishing Co. began polling readers in 2003, the survey includes data on the prevalence of homosexuality within the ranks — information the Defense Department is unable to collect under the legal requirements of DADT.

    http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/02/military_dontask_survey_020510w/

    Comment by rusty — May 25, 2010 @ 6:51 pm - May 25, 2010

  49. Why should Jewish groups with no military experience have any business telling the military how it should run?

    Because this is more than a military issue, it’s a political one and that invites public input. Just like the FRC presumes to comment on DADT, so do these groups. Besides, I assume that all of them regardless of their stance on the matter have members with military experience.

    Comment by John — May 25, 2010 @ 7:02 pm - May 25, 2010

  50. Because this is more than a military issue, it’s a political one and that invites public input. Just like the FRC presumes to comment on DADT, so do these groups. Besides, I assume that all of them regardless of their stance on the matter have members with military experience.

    I know that, and they certainly have the right to comment on their opinions about DADT. What rusty was doing with that and his newer post was an appeal to popularity fallacy. I was just pointing out that they have no military expertise.

    And even his newer post shows that a (tiny) majority of active-duty troops surveyed still oppose repealing DADT.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 25, 2010 @ 7:15 pm - May 25, 2010

  51. [...] End Soon For DADT? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Now, Optimistic about DADT repeal — May 25, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - May 25, 2010

  52. was and still am having a spunky kind of day.

    I’ll bet.

    I gotta go with Hunter on this one. They have an out and will most likely take it right after taking advantage of gays once again for political purposes.

    BTW, my senator (Nelson) is too busy making an ass of himself coming up with hair-brained schemes to fcuk up the oil spill even more.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 25, 2010 @ 8:17 pm - May 25, 2010

  53. Throbert – if you want the repeal to be more successful, I recommend taking a look at Punitive Articles 77, 78, 80. 81, 82, 92, 120, 133, and 134 – the last is a ‘Catch-all article.’ Military prosecutors ‘stack’ the charges in order to overwhelm the ability of the jury to sort through the evidence. It’s an effective tactic.

    Then there is the military’s un-legislated law: regulations. Thousands upon thousands, from DOD down to each subordinate branch, major command, post/base, and activity.

    We’re not talking one article, or a regulation. And, after changes are made to repeal DADT, there are the legal challenges. While all that’s going on, what happens to the military’s legal and administrative systems? That SecDef Gates has set a deadline for December means he either has hundred of attorneys and clerks researching the issue and developing true solutions, or he’s going to leave chaos heretofore unknown in America’s history.

    I have noticed an absence of a discussion on limits. What is the action, facet of sexuality, the ‘something’ that is the limit of advance? Gunny conducting dress blue inspection in a dress? Private Smith enlisted because his/her recruiter said the Army would pay for all the counseling, chemicals, and surgery that goes into one from one gender to another?

    Comment by DaveOnotinSF — May 25, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - May 25, 2010

  54. Gunny conducting dress blue inspection in a dress?

    Unless Gunny is fondling the hypothetical Marine in question, this is a not an issue. Or are you saying that there aren’t standards in place right now for Gunnys of one sex inspecting the uniforms of Marines of another? Hardly.

    Private Smith enlisted because his/her recruiter said the Army would pay for all the counseling, chemicals, and surgery that goes into one from one gender to another?

    Private Smith would be sorely disappointed since no proposals for DADT repeal include transgenders and we’d have another case of a recruiter making false promises.

    Comment by John — May 25, 2010 @ 9:05 pm - May 25, 2010

  55. John – the Gunny, in this instance, would be male. It ties into my question of what is an acceptable limit? Are trangendered and transexuals to be thrown under the bus?

    What are the second and third order effects of repealing DADT?

    Mentioned are major changes to the law. Sweeping revisions of regulations from top to bottom. And what of the impacts of civilian “hate” crimes on the military justice system?

    What of Morale, Welfare, & Recreation facilities and activities? Medical care? Pastoral counseling? Marriage/civil unions?

    What will the cost in terms of dollars and in terms of time (another form of dollars) to do all of this?

    I sense that for most folks, just repealing DADT is enough – the clouds will part, the angels will sing hosannas, and all will be at peace. To me, I liken it to Utah Beach on June 6th, 1944. You’re on the beach. Great. That was the easy part. Now scale the cliffs under fire Ranger.

    Comment by DaveOnotinSF — May 25, 2010 @ 9:55 pm - May 25, 2010

  56. Or are you saying that there aren’t standards in place right now for Gunnys of one sex inspecting the uniforms of Marines of another? Hardly.

    There are also laws in California that explicitly forbid both public nudity and taking children to adult venues.

    In short, it’s not that the law exists, it’s that it’s enforced. And you are expecting us to believe that the Obama Party and the Obama administration, both of which explicitly refuse to enforce laws, and the gay community, which explicitly refuses to follow laws and states that anyone who disagrees with its behaviors like taking children to sex fairs is a homophobic bigot, are going to enforce these standards.

    You have been used, John. The Obama Party and gay-sex liberals are not interested in military readiness. They are out to destroy the one institution they loathe the most, and you are going right along with them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2010 @ 10:44 pm - May 25, 2010

  57. John – the Gunny, in this instance, would be male.

    I assumed as much.

    It ties into my question of what is an acceptable limit?

    As far as, what exactly? Uniform inspections? Why exactly what they are now, which to my knowledge do not include groping the privates in both senses of the word.

    Are trangendered and transexuals to be thrown under the bus?

    Well on the one hand why should they be any different from the rest of us? After all, Obama has thrown most Americans under the proverbial bus since those “chickens have come home to roost” dontcha know. Yet transgenders bring a different dimension to this that the military and the public have yet to even begin to come to terms with as well as potential medical concerns from the drugs they take in order to “transition”. Medical concerns are entirely legit reasons to discriminate regardless of race, religion, blah blah blah.

    Mentioned are major changes to the law. Sweeping revisions of regulations from top to bottom.

    Which will be accomplished.

    And what of the impacts of civilian “hate” crimes on the military justice system?

    Military personnel are already subject to prosecution under Federal, State and local hate crimes laws. Now if you are speaking of whether the UCMJ should incorporate such laws, I doubt such would be necessary. I’m not aware of any such military laws for any other categories. There’s plenty in the UCMJ to nail an errant servicemember to the wall when necessary, besides the favorite catch-all of Article 134.

    What of Morale, Welfare, & Recreation facilities and activities? Medical care? Pastoral counseling? Marriage/civil unions?

    What about them? MWR facilities would be open to gay servicemembers as single individuals just like they are for everbody else, ditto for medical care and pastoral counseling. Marriage/civil unions are not an issue nor will they be as long as DOMA remains the law of the land.

    What will the cost in terms of dollars and in terms of time (another form of dollars) to do all of this?

    Beats me but given the nature of government undoubtedly more expensive than what it should cost.

    I sense that for most folks, just repealing DADT is enough – the clouds will part, the angels will sing hosannas, and all will be at peace. To me, I liken it to Utah Beach on June 6th, 1944. You’re on the beach. Great. That was the easy part. Now scale the cliffs under fire Ranger.

    Nope, I view it as a necessary step forward and then the hard work begins. Yet I also view repeal as something the military can handle and has proven in the past can overcome such challenges while maintaining its capability and readiness.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 8:28 am - May 26, 2010

  58. Rusty,

    Thanks for the description of the shades of the flower named heliotrope. You failed to mention its characteristic of facing the sun, from which it draws its name. It fixes on the source of light. Get it? It doesn’t dawdle in the shadows.

    As to my comment about gays in the military being locked up together with a stern monitor, Livewire (as always) understood it as satire.

    Here is the issue in with the source of light full in the face:

    1) Dropping DA/DT does not solve the conundrum of whether gays out of the closet enhance the military mission.

    2) What is the UCMJ to do about gays trolling?

    3) Why are liberal gays who likely oppose the military so darned eager to drop DA/DT?

    4) Are gays really going to relax if DA/DT is dropped, but a long list of banned sexual activities in the UCMJ prohibit them from exercising their sexual desires?

    5) The privacy of your bedroom in the civilian world is not possible in many military situations where soldiers are forced by conditions to live cheek by jowl.

    6) I believe that lib gays are full of manure on this whole issue. They are blathering away about “gay rights” and have little, if any, concern about the military mission.

    7) Your attempt to paint me as a voyeur is typical of liberals. Name calling is one of the first tactics when you don’t have the stuff to make a logical argument.

    Therefore: Rusty probably wonders why Heliotrope (the little pink and blue flower) keeps coming to a gay site. Why, he might be a closet gay! But, Rusty, you should notice that Heliotrope is always arguing from the position of whether the gay “agenda” improves society as a whole. Either you have a case to make or you are stomping your feet.

    Man up.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 26, 2010 @ 8:29 am - May 26, 2010

  59. There are also laws in California that explicitly forbid both public nudity and taking children to adult venues.

    Indeed, as there are laws on their books quite similiar to Arizona’s new law on illegal immigration. Yet California’s inability to enforce its own laws, let alone get a clue on proper budgeting, is its own problem to solve. I wish California well and hope it eventually does the right thing, but ultimately I don’t care as I’m not a Californian but a Virginian. Federalism means some states will be basket-cases like California and will reap what they sow. I have far more confidence in the military which has a proven track record and resolve when faced with such challenges.

    You have been used, John. The Obama Party and gay-sex liberals are not interested in military readiness. They are out to destroy the one institution they loathe the most, and you are going right along with them.

    And they will fail miserably. The military has endured administrations far worse than Obama’s. Besides, it may take the Dems to repeal DADT but the Repubs will get a large say in implementing it after November.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 8:35 am - May 26, 2010

  60. John,

    Just curious which you’d prefer. The UCMJ codes on fraternization/sexual contact being enforced across the board, or the standards being relaxed across the board?

    Disclaimer: When I was younger and a bit more rural, I used the UCMJ against a guy dating my sister. I cheerfully pointed out that he’d been through basic training already and was covered under the UCMJ, so anything under 18 was statuatory. I felt confident with him dating my sister, as if he did anything inappropriate he’d end up getting to know the military legal system intimately. He stopped dating my sister soon after.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 8:49 am - May 26, 2010

  61. Helitrope,

    If I might address your points.

    1) I believe that is what the military comission’s report is to say.

    2) The same thing about straights trolling. In both cases, I’d also point out the rank and file have been known to resolve the issue. (google ‘blanket party

    3) Those who oppose the military, yes they likely want to destabalize it. This would be countered by a stronger enforcement of the UCMJ, as well as number 2, above. “What happened to Private Pyle?” “Dunno sir, dude kept breaking ranks and falling down.”

    4) “Sure beats ‘alternate means of recreation’” – Under the Hammer, David Drake. This is one of the things to consider.

    5) There’s no ‘hang the sock on the door’ for straight soldiers either. In both cases, doing your boyfriend/girlfriend in the barracks would be tasteless.

    6) I think this fits a large number, maybe a plurality of the gay liberals. Certainly a number of them appear to post on the site. However, I don’t think most of them would make it through basic, let alone through AIT. And if they did, and were disruptive, well in peacetime they would be coersed to conform (which is what the military is about) and in wartime, they’d remove themselves from the gene pool right quick.

    7) I’ll let rusty speak to this. In his defense, text does strip emotional context and he does seem to have missed the sarcasm intended in your post. At the same time, yes, rusty, appologize to the nice flower guy.

    It’s a fact that we do have gay men and women serving now. And have in the past, all the way back to von Steuben. The question is, as we deal with threats of the 21st century (brought to us by the 8th and the 19th) do we allow them to serve openly, or do we deny the resources they do bring because of the problems they may bring.

    This does need to be addressed. We ignore the ‘problems’ brought by Muslims in the military. Even with the actions of Asan Akbar and Nidal Malik Hasan, we ignore the threat of radicalized Muslims and assume most all of the Muslims in the service are serving their country.

    We should re-evaluate that, as well as gays in the military. The end result might be “hey, DADT is a good idea after all.” But at least we have the discussion.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 9:17 am - May 26, 2010

  62. My two C-bills on the CD/TG issue.

    Cross Dressers. Tough. I couldn’t have my beard in the army, or my long hair. I also couldn’t be fat. you wear the uniform that matches your plumbing, deal with it.

    Trangendered. Well the military doesn’t take folks who are on anti-depressants, or ritallin. So with the hormones and other things that a TG needs, it makes sense (logistically) to exclude them.

    Not fair you say? Life’s tough, get a helmet.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 9:21 am - May 26, 2010

  63. Just curious which you’d prefer. The UCMJ codes on fraternization/sexual contact being enforced across the board, or the standards being relaxed across the board?

    Enforced equally across the board regardless of sexual orientation, with the notable exception of Article 125 that should either be re-written to exclude instances where consent is given or be removed entirely.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 9:27 am - May 26, 2010

  64. So a little of both (considering changing an article as ‘relaxing’ same). Thank you. Any of our vets know how the UMCJ is altered? Is it done by the executive or by the congress?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 10:29 am - May 26, 2010

  65. So a little of both (considering changing an article as ‘relaxing’ same). Thank you.

    Just to be clear, even without the repeal of DADT I believe Article 125 should be re-written or removed. It serves no legitimate purpose and makes even married heterosexual servicemembers engaging in oral or anal sex with their spouses in the privacy of their homes subject to prosecution. This kind of rule that most people disagree with and routinely ignore erodes respect for the law.

    Any of our vets know how the UMCJ is altered? Is it done by the executive or by the congress?

    The UCMJ itself is law so only Congress can alter it. Implementation of any changes would be by the Executive branch.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 11:38 am - May 26, 2010

  66. danke LW. . . my apologies to heliotrope

    and now for a little ‘man up’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgA4JQQhZD4

    Comment by rusty — May 26, 2010 @ 11:51 am - May 26, 2010

  67. It’s a fact that we do have gay men and women serving now.

    Indeed we do, and apparently doing a very good job of it — under a set of rules that make it clear that if you put your sexual orientation first and behave in the promiscuous and irresponsible manner that is mainstream in the gay community, you are gone.

    DADT requires gay and lesbian people to focus on the military mission, rather than on their own sexual orientation. It also explicitly precludes people receiving special treatment on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    Both of which are why liberals hate it.

    DADT is an excellent policy. If you put gay sex first, you don’t belong in the military. If you are willing to make personal sacrifices and obey orders just like heterosexuals do, you are welcome therein. Lieutenant Dan Choi, for example, is clearly unfit to serve because of his sexual orientation and the fact that it makes him act like an idiot. The policy removes him and gets him away from the people he will hurt because his sexual orientation prevents him from functioning as a normal person.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm - May 26, 2010

  68. This does need to be addressed. We ignore the ‘problems’ brought by Muslims in the military. Even with the actions of Asan Akbar and Nidal Malik Hasan, we ignore the threat of radicalized Muslims and assume most all of the Muslims in the service are serving their country.

    And why, Livewire?

    Because we have an administration and an Obama Party in power now that puts pandering to minorities ahead of protecting our soldiers.

    If you needed any better argument as to why DADT should stay put, that is it. It is insane to expect an Obama Party that openly states that it would rather soldiers be murdered than upset radical Islamists to decide that it will put the welfare of our soldiers ahead of pandering to gay-sex liberals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - May 26, 2010

  69. That may be true for our fuzzy Muslim terrorists, but it distracts from my point in that context.

    While there are folks who want to play GI Meat Market, we have several others who just want to serve, and there would be less pressure if they could openly say “I was out with my BF/GF and catching a film.” Or “Whee! A care package from the partner! Anyone want homemade cookies?”

    That’s the discussion I’m talking about NDT, the ones who go flaming will have that beat out of them, if not by the drill seargent, then by the unit in the barracks.

    We NEED to discuss if radicalized Muslims are a security risk, and what signs there are. We should have the discussion if people like my mom’s ex should have had to hide their orientation. It is possible to be gay and serve, w/o asking for special rights.

    MY little brother said it best, “I don’t care WHO they’re sleeping with as long as they’re doing their job and I can trust them.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 9:20 pm - May 26, 2010

  70. That’s the discussion I’m talking about NDT, the ones who go flaming will have that beat out of them, if not by the drill seargent, then by the unit in the barracks.

    Right. The community that turns purple, shrieks “hate crime”, and files fifteen lawsuits when you dare to write a letter critical of gay peoples’ behavior is going to allow that?

    It is possible to be gay and serve, w/o asking for special rights.

    Possible? Yes.

    Probable? You are asking me to believe that a community that has fought any criticism of its behavior, that screams “homophobe” whenever it is asked to follow any semblance of rules or guidelines, and which has demanded special rights for literal decades is suddenly going to drop that and decide they can play ball with the other kids.

    Not bloody likely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 2:07 am - May 27, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.