Gay Patriot Header Image

Reflections on DADT’s Repeal

Today truly is an historic day for the military. As Dan posted earlier this morning, cloture was reached on a bill sponsored by hawk Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) (<--notice no "D" in there) and minutes ago the full Senate voted 65-31 to enact the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010".

I'm very pleased for a few reasons:

First of all, this happened fairly. While there's an argument that this was thrust into the waning (and flailing) moments of a lame-duck session of the legislature, given the way the vote came down, it would likely have passed in the next Congress anyway, save for the leadership's likely reluctance to bring it to a vote in the first place. In that sense, there's a bit more democracy going on here in that the majority who would vote for it actually did get a chance to have the vote today that they probably wouldn’t have gotten in the 112th Congress next year.

Another aspect of fairness is that it passed on a stand-alone basis, not tucked into the Defense Authorization Bill as Harry Reid had tried to do earlier. By tying such a monumental act to an authorization bill that must be passed every year, Sen. Reid displayed his typical underhandedness and craven lack of integrity that in the end turned out to not even be necessary. That this vote was on its own bill shows the type of transparent and out-in-the-open nature of government that the Tea Parties were trying to achieve. It’s a shame that it came only after Sen. Reid’s back-room bargaining failed. In the end, though, baby-steps…

Third, I cannot express how grateful I am that this didn’t happen at the rap of a judge’s gavel. Nothing could have been more destructive than had our military been forced to make this change not because our commanders had been directed to do so by our elected civilian leaders, but by judicial fiat. Simply put, the judicial branch is not (despite this Administration’s obsession with trying our enemies in civilian courts) charged with, nor does it have the temperament for, taking on the responsibility of national security. While all would agree that the policy is discriminatory, that in and of itself is a very very poor reason to make such a huge change to policy. For example, the ADA doesn’t quite apply to the military, now, does it? On the other hand, give me a truly national-defense reason for considering applying it so, and I (and all military commanders) will be all ears.

Also, while the actual voting seemed to come up quickly, this action was actually very soberly taken and with great deliberation and thought. When the DoD commissioned a survey and the Secretary of Defense implored Congress to wait until that survey’s results and the larger study’s recommendations could be made on how to implement repeal, many looked at the calendar (after the election in which everybody knew the Democrats would lose much power) and sighed. However, patience has paid off and many minds (including those of some Senators’) were changed as a result of the study. Serious thought and concern for our military and the impacts of this action led many of our civilian leaders to support this repeal. Had the activists at HRC (and, yes, LCR also) had their way, this would have been rammed through this summer or fall before the study was made public. The result would have been certain defeat as the effort would have been seen as what it would have been: Another attempt to once again rush through legislation before we’ve had a chance to come up for air and think (and talk) it over.

Finally, and most consequentially, I’m pleased for our Nation. As I’ve stated many times in the past, DADT is a policy that puts our national security at risk. Forget all the whining and pleas about how “unfair” and “bigoted” the policy is. Set aside the childish theatrics of chaining oneself to the White House gate in order to stand up for your “rights” (which, apparently to some, include service in the military for some reason). And let go of the false premise that the policy either drummed out an inordinate number of troops or otherwise dissuaded so many from enlistment in the first place (both are extremely broad generalizations that don’t stand up to statistical rigor). After this repeal is implemented and gay men and women are allowed to openly serve, as I’ve mentioned before, those with security clearances will no longer be blackmailable (for being homosexual, that is) and therefore no longer pose that threat to national security.

As I’ve maintained from the beginning of this debate, the real reason for repeal of this policy should be rooted in national security. While I regret that, even up to the end (as I watched speeches on C-SPAN2), that argument was rarely raised, and when so, was poorly made, the end result will be that national security is strengthened. In these days of Wikileaks and our lowest-ranking members having access to our highest-priority information, removing this security risk is vital.

I’ve got some more thoughts on this, and I’ll be writing a lot this weekend and over the next few weeks as the policy is hashed out in practical terms. But for now, let’s enjoy the knowledge that our nation will be that much more safe as this security threat will soon be removed.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Share

128 Comments

  1. Nick, are you kidding me?! The real reason for repeal was to protect national security? Gimme a break! I can’t believe how stupid liberal and “conservative” gay social engineers think people are.

    Nick, am I really supposed to believe that closeted homosexual servicemen were the only threat to or weak link in our country’s ability to protect itself (and isn’t it a bit homophobic to even suggest that?). So now that gays can serve openly in the armed forces there will NEVER again be any blackmailing of servicemen by foreign agents. There will NEVER again be any spying, or leaking of secrets, or treason committed out of ideology, or spite, or plain old greed. Nope, all that’s over and done with now that gays can serve openly in the military. Which is what repeal was all about. Yeah, right. It looks like the only thing there will never be is honesty about the real intent of repeal. Sigh.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 4:05 pm - December 18, 2010

  2. This is why I’m a conservative Democrat and not a Republican.

    It will be interesting when being visibly gay means being a married soldier or a married Lutheran pastor instead of dressing like Lady GaGa.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 18, 2010 @ 4:11 pm - December 18, 2010

  3. beg to differ with the author but lieberman and collins are both democrats. even if there’s no d after their name.

    Comment by MARC — December 18, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - December 18, 2010

  4. Seane-Anna:
    First of all, I can’t project my reasons for why DADT should have been repealed onto those responsible for it. I stated mine, but they clearly don’t, on a whole, share my opinion.

    As clearly you also don’t. Then again, when you put words in my mouth like “closeted homosexual servicemen were the only threat to or weak link in our country’s ability to protect itself”, which I never said and would never say, I wonder whether you’re interested in having an honest discussion in the first place.

    The point is (and you can either agree or disagree, but it’s still the fact), any breach of our security, especially of classified information, is a huge problem. When there exists a codified system by which a security threat is specifically written into policy, it should be changed. DADT was just that sort of policy. We’re safer as a Nation now that it’s gone. Period.

    That this is one more closed leak is a move in the right direction. I never claimed the ridiculous strawman built by all of your all-caps “NEVER”s, and I wouldn’t. I sigh, too, at such a sophomoric attempt. It’s clear you’re not serious about actually having such a discussion. But thank you for taking the time to read. Would that you understood.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 18, 2010 @ 4:17 pm - December 18, 2010

  5. It will be interesting when being visibly gay means being a married soldier or a married Lutheran pastor instead of dressing like Lady GaGa.

    This is the first time in quite awhile that I agree completely with you, Ash. I look forward to this day as well. Like the Borg I fully support assimilation. :)

    Comment by John — December 18, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - December 18, 2010

  6. Hi Nick,

    Whatever the reason for the repeal, the repeal has happened. We need to work together now to ensure the safety of gay male troops. Thousands of them are now going to be locked into contracts that they may have been persuaded to sign without knowing how hard it is for gays in the military, especially in the lower ranks. We have to remember that the military is still an inherently antigay culture and the repeal won’t change that. As gay men (moreso than lesbians) now find themselves locked into the institution behind a wall of secrecy, the gay community has to do a lot of work to make sure that gay troops are safe, supported, and mentally well. I have posted several times about key practical matters to look after.

    Please remember that the repeal makes gay men less safe in the military. So we have to work to make sure they aren’t being sacrificed thanklessly.

    We have to move forward now.

    Comment by Robert Oscar Lopez — December 18, 2010 @ 4:23 pm - December 18, 2010

  7. Nick: I too am glad that DADT has finally been given the coup de grace. Although I supported the lawsuits, I have always preferred legislative repeal as the best outcome. Thank God the latter happened. Now if we can limit the “sensitivity” training and nix any attempts to make gays a special class (which means quotas, etc.), then victory will be complete. The study at least recommends this so if DoD uses this as their guideline for implementing repeal we are in good hands.

    Comment by John — December 18, 2010 @ 4:25 pm - December 18, 2010

  8. I’d like to thank the American people for making this all happen. If it weren’t for people belief in allow others to live their lives as they want to and for giving the Republicans another at doing the right thing than this bill not only would have not passed, but wouldn’t have even been up for a vote because the Democrats would have wanted continue using it as an issue to bash the Republicans with. I don’t care where you stand in regards to homosexuality (whether you’re okay with it or not), if you believe in “equality,” or if this alters your decision to join/stay in the military or not join/leave. Today, what we saw is what should be happening. I believe in liberty, getting rid of laws that are unconstitutional (or is the case of DADT unnecessary), and limiting how involve the courts get in public policy. Let’s hope this continues.

    Comment by MV — December 18, 2010 @ 4:28 pm - December 18, 2010

  9. Nick, I didn’t put words in your mouth. If you thought that’s what I was doing I apologize for not making myself clearer. But on the other hand, you need to understand sarcasm when you see it.

    In your article you did write that repealing DADT was about national security because closeted gays can no longer be blackmailed. You did appear to imply, whether you intended to or not, that such blackmailing was the main security threat to the nation. In my comment I was pointing out that there are other reasons for security breaches and that those reasons will not go away just because gay soldiers can now be open about their sexuality. And I stand by that. Sorry if you think that’s dishonest.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 4:32 pm - December 18, 2010

  10. Robert:
    I disagree. It seems you take a pretty dim view not only of gay military members (who somehow are “locked into contracts” they’ve been duped into signing?) but of the military as a whole (who will, for some reason now attack openly gay members, and not controlled by their commanders?).

    Let’s make sure we’re clear:
    1) Legal adults sign contracts to serve in the military well aware of the policies.
    2) They enter an institution steeped in unit discipline wherein commanders are held responsible for the welfare of their troops.

    The scenario you paint flies in the face of both of these conditions and I feel does not reflect the military I serve in.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 18, 2010 @ 4:33 pm - December 18, 2010

  11. Seane-Anna:
    What can I say? I write what I mean. Your ‘sarcasm’ was interpreted by me in the same way as I expect my words to be read: literally. My apologies, but perhaps you ought to write what you mean and read only the words I write. Conversation would be so much easier that way, don’t you think?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 18, 2010 @ 4:38 pm - December 18, 2010

  12. I come at this from a different perspective than Seane-Anna, but I just read this over at HuffPoop and you have to admit that this pretty much validates much of what she’s been saying all along:

    “The important thing today is that 63 senators were on the right side of history,” Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, told HuffPost after the first vote, adding he sees the bill as a “stepping stone to further advances for the gay and lesbian community.”

    The left will now go back to court to use this law to force not tolerance, but institutional validation.

    I was wrong however, that Reid was going to pull some shennanigans to keep this from actually passing. So I guess he is not always as slimy and manipulative and rotten as I think. Probably close, but not exactly.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 4:49 pm - December 18, 2010

  13. “8?

    Comment by Mike — December 18, 2010 @ 5:00 pm - December 18, 2010

  14. Hi Colorado Patriot,

    My experience at MEPS has been that people often sign the contract not knowing how the military is really going to treat them.

    In places where I have served, gay men were targeted and mistreated and commanders did not stop it.

    The reality of the Army as I know is that gay men often find the institution extremely unhealthy and may, for a variety of reasons, not be able to get the help they need in dealing with specific tribulations related to being gay.

    It is perfectly possible for you to have a great experience where you have served and for me to witness other conditions that are quite different. I think we have to be able to account for all possibilities and understand that the repeal was used, in thousands of cases, for servicemembers to leave voluntarily because they found the environment toxic for them as gay men. That provision is now gone and people who do not want to be in the military will be in the military without a way to resolve their situation. Given the high right of suicide and other mental health problems, it is not so easy to say that things will magically work themselves out.

    The argument that legal adults sign their contracts knowing what is in store for them is simply not the case for many people who enter the military. Recruiters are not always forthcoming, MEPS is crowded and rushed, and people do not know what the military is like until they start active duty. There are countless instances in which men may realize they are gay after their entry level separation window.

    Comment by Robert Oscar Lopez — December 18, 2010 @ 5:34 pm - December 18, 2010

  15. If 70% percent of the military are OK with being around gays, and they are a relatively conservative group, then the rest of the world must really be OK with gays. Maybe we’re not victims anymore. Maybe we can stop the whining and start acting like responsible adults–get married, raise families, go to a church, hold down a job, serve our country.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 18, 2010 @ 5:36 pm - December 18, 2010

  16. This was monumental and historic, and we can all be happy.

    However, although this is a big step in the right direction, homophobia is not yet dead. Gay servicemembers may yet face homophobia, and it will be essential that commanders endorse not only the letter but the spirit of maintaining order and acceptance.

    My thoughts go back to the brave Black servicemembers who served after Truman abolished segregation in the military. I can imagine the racial bias they must have suffered. Yet many persevered, and the opportunities for members of differing races to live, work, and fight alongside each other were a major reason for the far greater racial harmony we see in our nation today. Racism isn’t yet dead, but integration in the services 50 years ago has certainly contributed to its decline. I’m optimistic this historic act today will in the same way greatly reduce homophobia in our society as heteros and homos live, work, and fight together.

    Comment by man — December 18, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - December 18, 2010

  17. Ashpenaz, there are a lot of gays that would love to do just that. It’d be great to be able to get married, adopt kids, raise a family. It’s just hard to do when people are actively working to make that illegal/hard to accomplish. Implying that gays are whiny victims and not responsible, productive members of society is unfortunate.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - December 18, 2010

  18. I agree with Robert Oscar Lopez. Just because our betters in Washington have decided gay people can serve openly, it doesn’t necessarily mean the rank and file are going to accept watching a guy french kiss his boyfriend at the PX or the NCO club.

    There is almost certainly going to be negative unintended consequences from this for a while. I hope they’re prepared.

    Comment by Scott — December 18, 2010 @ 6:05 pm - December 18, 2010

  19. You guys are no longer welcome at Free Republic. See how the conservatives love gays…

    Comment by sean — December 18, 2010 @ 6:08 pm - December 18, 2010

  20. It’d be great to be able to get married

    You ARE able to

    adopt kids

    you ARE able to

    raise a family.

    you ARE able to.

    Implying that gays are whiny victims

    Um, forgive me AJ, but *I* call complaining about not being able to do things that you ARE perfectly able to do, and blaming “people” for actively trying to prevent you from doing what you are perfectly free to do being a whiny victim. It seems the very definition of the phrase.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - December 18, 2010

  21. Why haven’t my comments been posted yet? It’s been at least a 30 minutes since I submitted them.

    Are you not going to post them? Hypocrites. See? You’re CINOs – Conservatives In Name Only. You claim to hold Freedom of Speech above ALL ELSE, but you actually don’t.

    You are not conservative. The people at Free Republic are conservative. The people who watch Fox News are conservative. You are faggots.

    Comment by True Conservative — December 18, 2010 @ 6:11 pm - December 18, 2010

  22. You guys are no longer welcome at Free Republic. See how the conservatives love gays…

    We’re not? Says who?

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 6:11 pm - December 18, 2010

  23. Um, forgive me AJ, but *I* call complaining about not being able to do things that you ARE perfectly able to do, and blaming “people” for actively trying to prevent you from doing what you are perfectly free to do being a whiny victim. It seems the very definition of the phrase.

    Wrong. People have tried to and successfully ensured that gays cannot adopt kids in certain states. Kind of hard to raise a family when government officials believe that I’m not fit to raise a child simply because I don’t date women.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:20 pm - December 18, 2010

  24. What state do you live in NJ?

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 6:21 pm - December 18, 2010

  25. If you were referring to me, I’m lucky to have been born and raised in a relatively accepting state, MD. Some other gays aren’t, won’t be as lucky. It doesn’t matter where I’m from, my only point is that it happens, and not all gay couples can adopt. The fact that you even have to ask what state I live in highlights the problem.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:40 pm - December 18, 2010

  26. GayPatriot » Reflections on DADT's Repeal…

    Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……

    Trackback by World Spinner — December 18, 2010 @ 6:44 pm - December 18, 2010

  27. So you CAN get married, you CAN adopt, you CAN raise a family together and youre whining that youre a victim

    …and that proves your point.

    heh! The state you live in is denial.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 7:04 pm - December 18, 2010

  28. So you CAN get married, you CAN adopt, you CAN raise a family together and youre whining that youre a victim

    …and that proves your point.

    heh! The state you live in is denial.

    Did you actually read what I wrote? Please don’t put words in my mouth or selectively edit my statements. I said a lot of gays would like to have those rights. I do have the ability to do adopt, but I’m not selfish. Just because I can do it doesn’t mean everyone has that ability.

    I didn’t realize that wishing other gays were as lucky as I was to live in an accepting state made me whiny. I’m in denial about nothing.

    Why are you changing the argument? The point I was addressing is that not all gay couples in America can adopt. I’d love for you to address that point as. And if I’m wrong, please inform me. I hope, but doubt, that I am.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 7:11 pm - December 18, 2010

  29. i’ll wait and see if there are any unhealthy repercussions to this.

    Comment by The Griper — December 18, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - December 18, 2010

  30. Yes, the better question is, do YOU bother to read what you wrote?

    Um, forgive me AJ, but *I* call complaining about not being able to do things that you ARE perfectly able to do, and blaming “people” for actively trying to prevent you from doing what you are perfectly free to do being a whiny victim. It seems the very definition of the phrase.

    Wrong. People have tried to and successfully ensured that gays cannot adopt kids in certain states. Kind of hard to raise a family when government officials believe that I’m not fit to raise a child simply because I don’t date women.

    But this is beyond boring already. Yes, you have clearly proven that you are not a whiny victim whining about not being able to do things you are perfectly able to do. You win! I’m going to nap.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 7:19 pm - December 18, 2010

  31. Actually, if it means that much to a gay couple to adopt kids, there’s thing called a U-Haul….

    Adopting kids is not a basic human right; and I say this as a guy who’s adopted three kids out of foster care.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - December 18, 2010

  32. Yeah, #13?

    Comment by MV — December 18, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - December 18, 2010

  33. Kind of hard to raise a family when government officials believe that I’m not fit to raise a child simply because I don’t date women.

    Or, to throw AJ’s words right back at him: That opinion is your right to have. But sounds like u have an issue more with the legislature than with people who oppose gay adoption. Different people have different opinions of proper adoption laws. As long as the law is obeyed in the jurisdiction you’re in, you don’t have any right to complain.

    Personally, I think what makes AJ unfit as a parent is the fact that he is completely OK with older men hooking up with teenage boys.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 7:26 pm - December 18, 2010

  34. That’s fine, we can debate adoption laws at another time. My only point, in my original post, was that Gay couples don’t all have the right to adopt.

    American Elephant seems to want to play games with semantics, ignore what I originally wrote, ignore that I was referencing gays in general and not actually address my points which is fine. At least you seem to want to discuss the actual topic. We seem to disagree on who should be able to adopt, but at least we are both able to see that gays don’t all have the ability. I think American Elephant realizes it too, its just hard for some people to admit when they’re wrong. So ignoring reality, distracting from the argument and napping tend to be easier for them.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 7:56 pm - December 18, 2010

  35. Jim Nabors as Gomer Pyle . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5KeGccP9Jk

    Comment by rusty — December 18, 2010 @ 8:22 pm - December 18, 2010

  36. more reflections. . .from a gay Vietnam VET.

    The grave of Air Force Technical Sergent Leonard Matlovich: “When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.”

    Comment by rusty — December 18, 2010 @ 8:54 pm - December 18, 2010

  37. I live as an openly gay man in the middle of Central Nebraska. I grew up in South Dakota. I’ve never had any problems with people over my sexuality. I never had to move to NY or LA to find acceptance.

    The Midwest hates victims, we don’t hate gays. We hate people who whine and make excuses. I can now be a pastor in my church, raise children, join the military, be open in my job, and with a short jaunt to Iowa, get married.

    I am glad I am not part of the gay ghetto. All of my friends are straight, and we are friends because we share the same values, not the same orientation. I will be glad when gays realize that orientation is just one factor in people’s lives, and not even close to being the most important.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 18, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - December 18, 2010

  38. We’re not? Says who?

    Exhibit 1

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — December 18, 2010 @ 9:23 pm - December 18, 2010

  39. My only point, in my original post, was that Gay couples don’t all have the right to adopt.

    Straight couples “don’t all have the right to adopt”.

    So once again, AJ doesn’t want to play by the rules; he says gays and lesbians should get automatic special privileges because of their sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - December 18, 2010

  40. Love those RINOs!!!

    Comment by Mick Danger — December 18, 2010 @ 10:01 pm - December 18, 2010

  41. [...] Colorado Patriot (Nick) over at Gay Patriot reflects on the DADT repeal: …I cannot express how grateful I am that this didn’t happen at the rap [...]

    Pingback by DREAM Dies, DADT Repeal Advances | Blogs For Victory — December 18, 2010 @ 10:03 pm - December 18, 2010

  42. Nick, good post. You’ve hit on all the reasons why “this” is what progress for gays should look like. It was done democratically, in a fair vote on a clean bill, after due consideration, and with more due consideration legislated in (as to the implementation details).

    To make my view clear, I see no legal or moral right for anyone to serve in the military. The military should (and does) get to pick and choose whom it takes. However, I see a moral right (if not a legal one) for people to be free from invidious discrimination. When the military picks its people and how it is going to treat them, it should pick based on relevant criteria, like a person’s military capabilities and temperament; not on irrelevancies. If a person’s *inner* attraction to one gender or the other (which is what sexual orientation is, nothing more) is militarily relevant, someone had better explain it – rationally. There is lots of counter-evidence that gays can be great soldiers. Likewise, the idea that they should be kicked out – and/or that malingering straights should be allowed to get out – simply because they *admit* (or fail to perfectly hide) a homosexual orientation is silly at first glance, something that had better be explained and explained well, if it is true. I haven’t heard much of that. I’ve heard people express a lot of fears that the end of DADT is somehow going to wreck the military. I haven’t been persuaded.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2010 @ 10:08 pm - December 18, 2010

  43. (that it will)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2010 @ 10:09 pm - December 18, 2010

  44. Working my way down through the other GP threads. Turns out that Dan already stated my position, um, better than me:

    This issue shouldn’t be about gay rights, but instead about military effectiveness. If gay people can serve without harming unit cohesion, then the ban should be lifted… [with final] decision-making authority over this issue… [given to] our military leaders

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2010 @ 10:26 pm - December 18, 2010

  45. American Elephant at #12, thanks for the quote from HuffPost. The fact that the head of the Human Rights Campaign talked about repeal of DADT being a “stepping stone” to “further advances” for gays does pretty much validate what I’ve been saying. And I think Joe Solmonese was speaking for gay conservatives as well as the gay Left. I think most supporters of repeal wanted it precisely so they could use it to get “institutional validation”. Most gay conservatives will be coy about that, though, or they’ll keep trying to sell us on the repeal-is-all-about-national-security con.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 10:43 pm - December 18, 2010

  46. Whatever the rationale for this, the worst possible time to adopt a change that has an ‘unpredictable outcome’ is in the middle of a crisis.

    Would we put a prototype parachute into production before it was tested?
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 18, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - December 18, 2010

  47. ILC, I do understand the military effectiveness/national security reasoning of supporters of repeal, I just think it’s a ruse and not something supporters really care about or believe in. All that really matters to supporters of repeal is open expression of homosexuality, and those “further advances” that are coming.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 11:10 pm - December 18, 2010

  48. If a person’s *inner* attraction to one gender or the other (which is what sexual orientation is, nothing more) is militarily relevant, someone had better explain it – rationally.

    It can best be explained this way, ILC.

    In the military, communal living, including shared sleeping, dressing, and other spaces is required in the vast majority of circumstances because of the cost and inefficiency of maintaining private quarters for each individual in all situations — and the fact that this is usually not possible under combat conditions, so one needs to prepare for it well in advance of that fact. In addition, the shared living experience builds camaraderie and team unity.

    However, as long experience has taught, placing individuals who are sexually attracted to each other in a communal living space exponentially increases the risk of sexual pairing, jealousy, and misuse. If you were watching History International today, their documentary on “Hippies” demonstrated this quite nicely, citing sexual jealousy and the desire to pair off as the reason so many communes collapsed so quickly. In addition, the discomfort experienced by individuals when observed naked by someone who is sexually attracted to them when they are not is hardly conducive to camaraderie or readiness.

    For heterosexuals, the way to handle this is simple and straightforward; since heterosexuals of the same gender are not attracted to each other, separating the sexes in these communal areas immediately solves the problem of sexual jealousy, etc.. Furthermore, the additional cost and efficiency loss of doing so is well worth it, given that simply barring one gender from service would immediately cut out 50% of potential military recruits.

    For gays and lesbians, this is not simple or straightforward. The ultimate answer would be private quarters for each individual, which is not conducive to the necessary military environment and prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, the accomodation would be for, at most, 5% of potential military recruits, and completely unnecessary under current rules for the remaining 95%.

    Thus, because of their sexual attractions, gays and lesbians are not good fits for the military environment. That is not discrimination, any more than a narcoleptic not being a good fit for an over-the-road trucking job would be.

    The question then becomes whether or not accomodations should be made. My answer in this case would be no; there is no pressing need for gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces, and the fact that one wants to serve is not necessarily grounds for allowing one to do so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 11:10 pm - December 18, 2010

  49. My 0.02 is to bring up the “law of unintended consequences.”

    Back in the early 90′s when progressives thought it was “a good idea” to introduce women on combatant ships. This in itself brought new and complex personnel issues Commanding Officers had to deal with such as pregnancy and fraternization. Well, 15-plus years later, these same personnel issues endures today at a significant cost to the taxpayers. I lost a top-notch female sailor due to an “unplanned” pregnancy. Not only did she not return to the ship but it took an Act of Congress to get a suitable replacement for her. Many believe the repeal of DADT is “a good idea,” remember that there will unintended consequences past the touchy-feely talk of repealing a ‘discriminatory’ law. These unintended consequences can run the gamut from open homosexual servicemembers being discriminated against even MORE to special civil rights regulations being instituted to protect gay servicememembers (almost to the same extent as going overboard with sexual harassment regs and training back in the late 90′s).

    Additionally… if anyone wants to compare the repeal of DADT with the integration of African Americans in the military, let’s get ready to rumble! I am a product of two parents who were subject to Jim Crow laws in the Deep South back in the day and a father whose ability to serve in the Army Air Corps was based upon Jim Crow laws and not his sexual orientation or content of his character. I am willing to bet that they sat at the back of the streetcar or bus behind many gay White men…

    The repeal of DADT was going to happen, either now or five years from now, but the timing of this is poor. The lame duck Democrat Congress (and it’s RINO allies) has shown poor headwork to score political points with one of its more outspoken constituencies. I believe people’s memories are long…if the Democrats experienced a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterms, they can probably plan for an “extinction” in 2012.

    Comment by NavySpy — December 18, 2010 @ 11:50 pm - December 18, 2010

  50. NDT — many gays and lesbians have been serving, sharing quarters with fellow service members, with many, if not most of those members aware, informed and even supportive of their gay and lesbian comrades.

    sounds like this is more of an issue for you.

    Comment by rusty — December 18, 2010 @ 11:52 pm - December 18, 2010

  51. Yea, as long as the gays obey code and don’t do anything outwardly sexual or make advances on other guys, what’s the issue? They should be held to the same standard as everyone else. No one wants special rights, just the ability to be honest.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 12:02 am - December 19, 2010

  52. NDT — many gays and lesbians have been serving, sharing quarters with fellow service members, with many, if not most of those members aware, informed and even supportive of their gay and lesbian comrades.

    Which neatly contradicts everything you have previously stated about DADT forcing gay and lesbian people to lie.

    And which also demonstrates that DADT works perfectly well, contrary to your previous statements that it harms the military.

    So which is it, rusty?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:07 am - December 19, 2010

  53. Yeah, whatever. Now I feel so much safer knowing that our national security is no longer at risk. Thanks Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud. Now I really want to support “gay rights.” /sn I’m a Lt Col and 24 year veteran of the Air Force. I have nothing against gays in general, but this is just beyond the pale. There is no right to serve in the military. None. Any feelings that I may have had about maybe finding common cause with gay “conservatives” just disappeared today. You people are nothing to me.

    Comment by RickS — December 19, 2010 @ 12:07 am - December 19, 2010

  54. Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:11 am - December 19, 2010

  55. No one wants special rights, just the ability to be honest.

    That is a lie.

    You see, AJ, your fellow gays and lesbians are out there screaming and shrieking that firing someone who sexually harasses others is homophobic.

    Straight people do not get to sexually harass others. That is against the law. Your Obama Party and your union masters are out there insisting that gay and lesbian people should be allowed to sexually harass others at will.

    You have already proven that you will not follow the law and that you demand special rights. Why should you be trusted or believed?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:11 am - December 19, 2010

  56. “many gays and lesbians have been serving, sharing quarters with fellow service members”

    ———

    But those are the conservatives.

    DADT’s primary flaw will be to grant leftists the license to complain. And like all leftists, they will insist that the military culture conform to their needs, instead of the other way around.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 12:18 am - December 19, 2010

  57. Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.

    Which equates to approximately 0.45% of the 2.9 million active-duty and reserve personnel in the military.

    And which pales in regard to the number of other discharges given.

    And which also demonstrates the point by hilariously presuming that none of said discharges was in any way justified because the person involved was allegedly gay or lesbian.

    Furthermore, rusty, the gay and lesbian community, as exemplified by Bradley Manning and the defense of Bradley Manning’s behavior by leaders of the gay and lesbian community such as Glenn Greenwald, holds an ideology and behavior pattern that is crossways to military service. As Nick has aptly pointed out, the gay and lesbian community has repeatedly abused troops in uniform, allying with leftist causes like Code Pink and the Obama Party that brand our troops as murderers and babykillers, calls them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, and funds the very people trying to kill them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:22 am - December 19, 2010

  58. And just to be clear, all leftists will begin to complain. It won’t be just Gay leftists. This is now a legal precedence that other ‘personal conflicts’ will be measured against.

    Once that ball gets rolling, the military may find itself conforming to many different new standards.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 12:28 am - December 19, 2010

  59. oh, NDT, I just finished my hot toddy Crown Royal Black with honey and lemon. . .fighting off an ugly cold. but tomorrow is looking grand. a smile on my face. DADT will continue to slowly fade.

    I hope that your insistance to argue for the sake of being argumentative will fade before the holidaze slips away.

    smile. be happy and let go of the negativity.

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/Fremont.jpg

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:31 am - December 19, 2010

  60. And it’s already started.

    Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But he said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is officially abolished.

    “As soon as they give me the go, I’m going to march into the recruiter’s office,” he said. “And I want retroactive pay and rank.”

    Gee, what a surprise; a whiner and complainer who intends to use his sexual orientation to demand special treatment was kicked out under DADT.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 12:59 am - December 19, 2010

  61. What special treatment does he want?

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 1:30 am - December 19, 2010

  62. Retroactive pay and rank.

    Doesn’t work that way when your own conduct gets you removed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 1:36 am - December 19, 2010

  63. Except the conduct that got him removed will no longer be an issue..

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 2:01 am - December 19, 2010

  64. AE, you wrote: “So I guess he [Reid] is not always as slimy and manipulative and rotten as I think.” Oh, he still is that slimy and manipulative. He’s probably worse than you think. And unfortunately, he is still one of my senators for another six years. Sigh.

    Comment by Kurt — December 19, 2010 @ 2:11 am - December 19, 2010

  65. Now I know who to blame, Kurt. :)

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 3:09 am - December 19, 2010

  66. Exhibit 1

    Comment by Michael Ejercito

    Well, I don’t really support the gay agenda, so that means I would be welcome.

    However, that speaks VERY poorly of “Free” Republic. I’d say they should be ashamed of themselves, but they clearly aren’t. Hopefully others can make them feel some shame. Free Republic, except for free speech.

    Kicking people off for the ideas they espouse is what “progressives”, not conservatives do.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 3:15 am - December 19, 2010

  67. Unless the repeal is retroactive, this douche will only get the boot again.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2010 @ 3:26 am - December 19, 2010

  68. Hail, Senate! So glad this didn’t have to go through the courts.

    Requiring gay men and women to exercise mendacity and the deliberate abrogation of integrity as a prerequisite to serving in the military–this was appalling. But not surprising, considering it was signed into law by a man whose infidelity, philandering, and manipulations were legend. (Yeah, a heterosexual guy, too. And SO beyond reproach in his behaviors…but that was OK, he was boinking girls.)

    Most queers in the service whom I know are in fact conservatives and independents. Not one has made a “liberal” identity politics case of themselves. All I’ve known and talked to just want to be honest, not only about themselves, but those they love. (Why should queer women and men in the service have to hide away their partners/families? Why should they be open to surveillance and blackmail? This sort of nonsense has no place in our military.)

    I must say, I’ve gotten a huge laugh out of some of the fears being projected onto this issue and gays in general. I get this impression of adolescent boys, not mature men and women. You know, the Comic Book Guy types who fantasize about being devoured by Wonder Woman, oh HORRIBLE, because deep down that’s exactly what they want. And can’t admit.

    It is ridiculous that a 19th century/Victorian category (“homosexual”) should be causing so much consternation in the 21st. Let’s get back to a saner time, when a person’s sexual practices were just that, one part of themselves, not all of it. Too many conservatives put on the 1960s-1970s liberal glasses that view gayness as a species, rather than part of human diversity.

    As for security risk of gays in the military, if gayness isn’t stigmatized, that removes gayness as a stigma around which they can be manipulated by enemies foreign and domestic. Or am I thinking with my brain, rather than my nads?

    Comment by pookie — December 19, 2010 @ 5:45 am - December 19, 2010

  69. [...]  vote comes as a result of “gay-mail” by Private Bradley Manning in WikiLeaks??I agree with Colorado Patriot over at GayPatriot blog  that it is a GOOD thing that the repeal of DADT was handled as a “stand-alone” bill and not [...]

    Pingback by DADT, Bradley Manning and the Gay Bullying Agenda — December 19, 2010 @ 6:04 am - December 19, 2010

  70. I gott a agree with Rick S above a former service member who says that he now has hard feelings towards the Gay community.

    I’m a Libertarian. Libertarian Republican exactly. On Gay issues:

    1. Sodomy laws – Against!
    2. Banning Gay Porn – Against!
    3. Crack-down on Gay Nightclubs (like recently in Atlanta) – Against!
    4. Islamo-Fascists executing Gays in Iran, Middle East – Extremely and Passionately Against!!

    But now this issue has soured the well. I’m serious. You Gay Conservatives out there – and I’ve been a fan of this website for years – have some serious, serious rift-heeling to do now. And it’s on your hands. You have just royally pissed off a number of us Military Vets who were with you on 100% of the rest of your agenda. I’m so pissed off, I honestly don’t know how it is I can work with you all any more.

    Eric Dondero, Publisher
    LibertarianRepublican.net

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 7:47 am - December 19, 2010

  71. [...] the DADT will allow the Armed services to take control of the dismantling the DADT policies, a better idea than doing so under court orders. I cannot express how grateful I am that this didn’t happen at the rap of a judge’s gavel. [...]

    Pingback by Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Voted Out | Liberty's Blog — December 19, 2010 @ 8:28 am - December 19, 2010

  72. [...] Here’s Gay Patriot’s take… [...]

    Pingback by The Jellywhite Almanac: « King B Live — December 19, 2010 @ 8:37 am - December 19, 2010

  73. North Dallas said “”My only point, in my original post, was that Gay couples don’t all have the right to adopt.

    Straight couples “don’t all have the right to adopt”.

    So once again, AJ doesn’t want to play by the rules; he says gays and lesbians should get automatic special privileges because of their sexual orientation.”.

    It never fails to amaze me how Northdallas thinks childishly illogical arguments are going to convince anyone of his viewpoint. While not all heterosexual couples have the right to adopt there are NO states where ALL heterosexual couples are banned from adopting and there ARE States where NO gay couples can adopt. In Northdallas’s hatefilled rage he doesn’t care about reality, he’ll say the two situations are the same even when its obvious to all (him included) that they are not. To claim its “special privileges” for a state to allow some gay couples to adopt just as they allow some heterosexual couples to adopt is too idiotic for even Northdallas to believe but somehow he thinks he’s got something to gain by asserting it anyway and thus affirming his total lack of intregrity yet again.

    I came here to see how the the gays here were reacting to the repeal of DADT. I expected to see near universal angst and assertions that the sky is falling and was surprised to see the vast majority here are happy about the repeal. But Northdallas didn’t disapoint, he’ll scream like a scalded dog about any step towards equality for gays regardless of what it is or how it comes about. He has no principles beyond oppressing and demeaning gays and equality supporters without regard for truth, reality, or justice. He’s a sad hate-filled shell of a man struggling in vain to gain a shred of self esteem by attempting to make gays and supporters of equality look more despicable than he is.

    Comment by Priya Lynn — December 19, 2010 @ 11:37 am - December 19, 2010

  74. As ex Army, and gay I thought it would be a while for DADT to be repealed. But I’m pleased it has fallen. The best thing is it has been repealed by the CONGRESS not one old man in a court. The Congress is where the peoples views are suppose to be best represented. If abortion had been handled the same way, it would have been old ancient history by now. Like women voting, blacks in the military, I’m confident the military will adjust to this new thinking about gays. A small percentage will buck the trend but that’s life huh.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 19, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - December 19, 2010

  75. Priya Lynn, I wouldn’t have been as harsh, but that’s the general feeling I get too. NDT is more into distractions and wasting time arguing over single words in a post than he is in actually putting together a logical, well thought out counter argument. It’s fun to see him use the same tired tactics over and over again as facts fail him more and more.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 12:14 pm - December 19, 2010

  76. Gene,

    I’m hoping you’re right. I worry that the 30% numbers mentioned in the report are accurate and instead of enhancing national security, we’ve frakked it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 12:17 pm - December 19, 2010

  77. Priya Lynn, so it’s your belief that it’s oppression if a person or a group of people don’t get state and societal approval of and support for their sexual lifestyle. Am I right? So, any day now, you’re going to start marching and protesting for state and societal approval of and support for all the polygamists–Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, secular, etc.–in our nation who have to hide and live in fear because of those close-minded and bigoted social conservatives who insist on imposing their narrow, oppressive, and outdated view of marriage on everyone. Am I right?

    Beautiful name, btw.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - December 19, 2010

  78. “I am willing to bet that [my parents] sat at the back of the streetcar or bus behind many gay White men…”

    Excellent and succinct explanation, NavySpy, of why Blacks’ civil rights struggle is NOT the same as gays’ demand for approval of their libido.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 12:27 pm - December 19, 2010

  79. don’t know why Seane-Anna. . .but you just come to mind with. . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYR3dorshwA

    Comment by rusty — December 19, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - December 19, 2010

  80. Very funny, Rusty! I LOVE “Night of the Living Dead”. The clip does NOTHING to refute anything I’ve said here or support anything you’ve said here, but it IS good for a laugh!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 1:26 pm - December 19, 2010

  81. Why isn’t anyone addressing the fundamental issue of discrimination. Gay guys can now leer and gawk at straight dudes in the showers, and bunk areas undresseing, yet Straight guys have no such right to do the same with their female fellow soldiers and sailors.

    Guess it’s just politically incorrect to point that out.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - December 19, 2010

  82. So, Eric: Are the “Libertarian Conservatives” now holding up leering as a civil right?

    Wanna go to the wall defending that one? ;-)

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 1:47 pm - December 19, 2010

  83. And, FWIW, I don’t expect that leering or gawking at anybody in the shower will be tolerated. But maybe you were just being ironic.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 1:58 pm - December 19, 2010

  84. In my last rant, I talked about the law of unintended consequences… see I told you so.

    Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But he said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is officially abolished.

    “As soon as they give me the go, I’m going to march into the recruiter’s office,” he said. “And I want retroactive pay and rank.”

    I didn’t think about this one, but, now the floodgates are opened. This one is going to get messy.

    Comment by NavySpy — December 19, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - December 19, 2010

  85. “And I want retroactive pay and rank.”

    I wouldn’t say that’s in the spirit of the selflessness and sense of duty that built ours into the most feared and respected military force in the history of the world.

    Here’s hoping that if Mr. Arbury is granted reenlistment he matures in his perspective before reentering the military.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 2:30 pm - December 19, 2010

  86. Yea, as long as the gays obey code and don’t do anything outwardly sexual or make advances on other guys, what’s the issue? They should be held to the same standard as everyone else. No one wants special rights, just the ability to be honest.

    Indeed.

    But there does not exist an explicit statutory provision permitting administrative separation for violating the code (as opposed to using the blunt instrument of a court-martial). To be sure, the Department of Defense can issue regulations authorizing such separations- but remember that regulations are invalid if they exceed the military’s statutory authority, and a serviceperson discharged for homosexual conduct could petition for an injunction to void the discharge on the basis that it exceeds the statutory authority of the military.

    And, FWIW, I don’t expect that leering or gawking at anybody in the shower will be tolerated.

    How is that handled in regards to men and women?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — December 19, 2010 @ 3:05 pm - December 19, 2010

  87. If a person’s *inner* attraction to one gender or the other (which is what sexual orientation is, nothing more) is militarily relevant, someone had better explain it – rationally.

    It can best be explained this way, ILC. In the military, communal living, including shared sleeping, dressing, and other spaces is required

    Not in dispute.

    placing individuals who are sexually attracted to each other in a communal living space exponentially increases the risk of sexual pairing, jealousy, and misuse

    Unpersuasive in regard to gays. First, since gays are a small minority (as you often remind people), the effect you describe will *not* be the same as the effect of mixing men and women; it will be much smaller. Second, male-female contact is much more “charged” historically, emotionally, biologically and in other ways because of how male-female relations involve deep issues of family and mating – including procreation (again as you often remind people).

    Both of the above reasons predict that gays and lesbians can be mixed into military situations with little disruption if it is done right (e.g. if discipline is maintained and professionalism is inculcated); i.e. certainly with far less disruption than if men and women were mixed together directly. That brings me to my third reason: There are ALREADY gays and lesbians in the military with little or no harmful effect on average (leaving aside anecdotal/extreme cases, which could as easily be generated to show why heterosexuality is incompatible with military service). History is replete with examples of effective gays in the military. You have still not explained why making them pretend to not be gay is a practical military necessity.

    If you were watching History International today, their documentary on “Hippies” demonstrated this quite nicely, citing sexual jealousy and the desire to pair off as the reason so many communes collapsed so quickly.

    Again, that’s men-women – which you frequently assert, in other contexts, as being fundamentally different from the gay situation. Also… you’re citing the example of hippies? Really?

    In addition, the discomfort experienced by individuals when observed naked by someone who is sexually attracted to them when they are not is hardly conducive to camaraderie or readiness.

    … which can be handled by a code of conduct. (Starting with “Don’t look.”)

    For heterosexuals, the way to handle this is simple and straightforward; since heterosexuals of the same gender are not attracted to each other, separating the sexes in these communal areas immediately solves the problem of sexual jealousy, etc..

    With respect, I can only describe that as naive. No, it doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, straight guys manage to be jealous of each other and get into fights all the time. Second, sexual orientation is a continuum: many straight guys actually do possess *some* component of homosexual attraction. Third, once more, you ignore the fact that we have already (and successfully) long had gays in the military. If sexual jealousy (with / because of gays, I mean), and for that matter privacy issues as well, were going to be that great of a problem, then the military should have already fallen apart 200 or more years ago.

    Thus, because of their sexual attractions, gays and lesbians are not good fits for the military environment.

    Since I have refuted many of your points above, I do not agree with your conclusion. I thank you for trying to explain it rationally. Part of having explained it rationally, though, is that your arguments are sound; that they carry the day. I have not found here, that yours have.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - December 19, 2010

  88. And rusty: I wish you could meet NDT some day. Yes, he’s argumentative here. Aren’t we all? It’s just “blog-space”, a place where we all argue about these things. Having met NDT several times in real life, I know he is a happy guy. Psychologists have found that some people are naturally happy; NDT has always struck me as one of them. (Me, I am more the brooding type ;-) )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2010 @ 3:25 pm - December 19, 2010

  89. And once more FTR: No, I don’t think that serving in the military is a “right” for gays or anyone, or that the military should allow gay status as an excuse for people to pull bullsh*t moves.

    I really think the military will benefit from DADT repeal, overall. I really think it is up to the task of adapting to its gay members no longer having to 100% hide the fact that they are gay. I really think it will benefit from *not* spending the time and effort it took to kick out those 13,000 servicemembers or whatever it was, since 1993. I really think it will benefit from closing a loophole that some straight malingerers have used to quit. I really think that a lot of the fears that have been expressed about unintended consequences will, five years from now, seem exaggerated in retrospect.

    Enough out of me!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2010 @ 3:31 pm - December 19, 2010

  90. I really think the military will benefit from DADT repeal, overall. I really think it is up to the task of adapting to its gay members no longer having to 100% hide the fact that they are gay. I really think it will benefit from *not* spending the time and effort it took to kick out those 13,000 servicemembers or whatever it was, since 1993. I really think it will benefit from closing a loophole that some straight malingerers have used to quit. I really think that a lot of the fears that have been expressed about unintended consequences will, five years from now, seem exaggerated in retrospect.

    It depends on if the military retains the flexibility of handling the sexual dynamics, up to and including administrative separations and courts-martial.

    An activist judge could conceivably obviate the military from handling the sexual dynamics effectively, using twisted logic that the military’s policies exceed statutory authority or even violate the U.S. Constitution.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — December 19, 2010 @ 3:35 pm - December 19, 2010

  91. Not being “ironic” at all. Quite serious. Why should a Gay guy have the right to stare at me in the shower and yet I don’t have the right as a Straight male to do the same to my fellow female members of the Armed Forces?

    This is the question Gay Rights advocates hope nobody raises.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - December 19, 2010

  92. Not being “ironic” at all. Quite serious. Why should a Gay guy have the right to stare at me in the shower and yet I don’t have the right as a Straight male to do the same to my fellow female members of the Armed Forces?

    This is the question Gay Rights advocates hope nobody raises.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - December 19, 2010

  93. It’s been my experience observing Gay sailors when I was in the Navy, that they’re perfectly fine when they’re sober. When they get drunk, they let it all hang out.

    One guy on our ship got wasted, and decided to suck off some guy who was sleeping in his bunk. Needless to say, when the guy woke up he was rather upset. Created a huge stir on our ship for weeks.

    But because of PC attitudes, even way back in the early 1980s, the Gay guy only got a slap on the wrist.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 3:51 pm - December 19, 2010

  94. One last thing – Eric, contrary to your suggestions, I for one have no problem whatever with that question.

    Why should a Gay guy have the right to stare at me in the shower

    But he shouldn’t / doesn’t. Question answered.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - December 19, 2010

  95. One guy on our ship got wasted, and decided to suck off some guy who was sleeping in his bunk.

    You served with Democrat Congressman Eric Massa?

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 4:01 pm - December 19, 2010

  96. Not being “ironic” at all. Quite serious. Why should a Gay guy have the right to stare at me in the shower and yet I don’t have the right as a Straight male to do the same to my fellow female members of the Armed Forces?

    They should not.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — December 19, 2010 @ 4:02 pm - December 19, 2010

  97. Eric:
    ILC and Michael perfectly answered your question the same was I would: They should not.
    Next issue?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 4:06 pm - December 19, 2010

  98. No, I don’t think that serving in the military is a “right” for gays or anyone, or that the military should allow gay status as an excuse for people to pull bullsh*t moves.

    But a judge could rule that gay people have a right to use their gay status to pull bullsh*t moves.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — December 19, 2010 @ 4:13 pm - December 19, 2010

  99. One very last thing:

    One guy on our ship got wasted, and decided to suck off some guy who was sleeping in his bunk. Needless to say, when the guy woke up he was rather upset.

    Eric, I believe the technical term for what you describe is “rape”, and that alcohol is not an accepted excuse for it.

    Created a huge stir on our ship for weeks.

    I would fault your chain of command for that. It’s their job to maintain discipline. It’s their job, frankly, to prosecute (or at least discipline) rapists. Don’t fault or punish gays (as a group) for your commanders’ failures.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2010 @ 4:15 pm - December 19, 2010

  100. [...] agree with Nick at GayPatriot that this legislative outcome is hugely preferable to the judicial ruling that no doubt was just a [...]

    Pingback by DADT: Some Days It’s Not Easy Being a Socially Liberal Republican | All That Is Necessary… — December 19, 2010 @ 6:56 pm - December 19, 2010

  101. Third, once more, you ignore the fact that we have already (and successfully) long had gays in the military. If sexual jealousy (with / because of gays, I mean), and for that matter privacy issues as well, were going to be that great of a problem, then the military should have already fallen apart 200 or more years ago.

    The rebuttal to that is this: while there have been gays and lesbians serving in the military, they have been under strict rules and screening in which engaging in the type of behavior described was grounds for immediate removal. You are stating that a situation in which there is heightened scrutiny for such behavior would produce the same outcome as one in which there is no scrutiny.

    In addition, this argument of there previously being successful gay and lesbian individuals in the military would demonstrate that DADT and the outright ban on gay and lesbian individuals in fact did NOT significantly impair or reduce the ability to perform their military functions.

    Therefore, in my opinion, the removal of DADT represents an unnecessary lowering of standards and conduct. The previous success of gay and lesbian individuals under this policy demonstrates that it does not significantly impair or reduce the ability of committed gay and lesbian individuals to serve. Meanwhile, while you state that the effect would be small due to the small number of gays and lesbians, I would simply say that, based on that, why create the effect in the first place to accomodate such a small number of individuals?

    In addition, Michael Ejercito’s example brings up an excellent point: in the hierarchy of risk mitigation, the default solution is always to eliminate the risk completely. if you have a slippery marble floor, getting rid of the marble is always a better solution than having the janitor out with towels every rainy day; the janitor may be sick, busy, or have better things to do than be drying the floor for everyone, but that is irrelevant if the marble is no longer there.

    Similarly, I would state this: there is no pressing reason or requirement for gays and lesbians to serve under non-DADT conditions. We have an all-volunteer army whose total size, including reserves, represents barely 0.5% of our population. Why take on the risk for essentially no gain?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 7:21 pm - December 19, 2010

  102. Like I said, which obviously some of you here did not hear, or rather chose not to hear, even in the 1980s political correctness ran rampant in the US Navy. “Jeff” who was actually quite a nice guy who everyone pretty much liked when he was sober, got nothing more than a slap on the wrist for sucking off Seaman Nachoff (who btw, eveyone on the ship hated cause he was pretty much a dirtbag).

    Point is; it doesn’t matter if it’s rape. A Gay guy will get off, cause of political correctness. The ACLU will be all over it. He’ll have lawyers out of the wazoo.

    A Straight guy would get whacked for 30 years in the brig for the same offense that a Gay guy commits, cause a Straight guy, particularly a Straight white guy is not a member of a protected minority.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 7:33 pm - December 19, 2010

  103. Bwhahahahaha! Are you friggin’ kidding me???!!!

    Are you all seriously suggesting that Gay guys won’t stare (or even jerk off) to Straight guys in the common shower areas? That is absolutely absurd, even comincal. You all obviously haven’t served in the Military.

    It would happen ALL THE TIME! in the Navy. And we Straight guys would get super, super pissed off about it. But if we complained? Deaf ears. Political correctness kicked in. Even in the 1980s people in the chain of command were worried about making a ruckus cause of worry over litigation by the ACLU and other liberal special interests groups.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - December 19, 2010

  104. Look, I’m gonna say this here, please listen you all.

    I am a LIBERTARIAN. I’m with you all on 100% of all other issues concerning Gay rights.

    What’s most important here in this debate is that this issue will now drive a serious wedge between those of us who are for tolerance but against Gays in the Military, and the rest of pro-tolerance conservatives who are in favor of Gays in the Military.

    I’m serious you all. This is causing some serious heartache. And has seriously endangered our coalition for the future.

    And by the reaction here, of gloating over this DADT repeal, you all are causing even more of a wedge.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 19, 2010 @ 7:39 pm - December 19, 2010

  105. I’d put it this way; since the gay and lesbian community is already shrieking that it is “homophobic” to fire someone that even the whacked-out San Francisco Commission on Human Rights found to be sexually harassing people, expecting them to suddenly develop restraint and respect for the decisions of the military chain of command is an act of optimism on the order of expecting Nancy Pelosi to develop a sense of propriety.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 8:13 pm - December 19, 2010

  106. What’s most important here in this debate is that this issue will now drive a serious wedge between those of us who are for tolerance but against Gays in the Military, and the rest of pro-tolerance conservatives who are in favor of Gays in the Military.

    Eric, if I may, here’s how I see the problem.

    - You are convinced that gays and lesbians will abuse the legal system to demand “protections” and “special privileges”.

    - ILC, Nick, and others here would also agree with you 100% that such abuse of the legal system would be an absolute travesty and should be completely opposed.

    - The difference is that you (and I) believe that this will happen (and has happened already); they do not believe that this will happen, or that it can be avoided.

    Like you, I am not sanguine about this. The Obama administration is the most racist and minority-status-obsessed in the history of this country, and it listens only to the extremist gay and lesbian left who not only hate the military, but want to litigate it out of existence. The Obama Party and Barack Obama himself have zero problem with quotas and special treatment for gay and lesbian soldiers, and with political puppets like Mullen in charge, that is exactly what we will get.

    That being said….please realize that, when push comes to shove and something does happen, Nick, ILC, and others will be right there with you condemning and attacking the Obama Party and the left for its quotas and outright discriminatory treatment.

    This isn’t the place to be leveling your guns. The place to be leveling them is at the gay bigot organizations and gay bigots.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 8:29 pm - December 19, 2010

  107. So now that gays can serve openly in the armed forces there will NEVER again be any blackmailing of servicemen by foreign agents. There will NEVER again be any spying, or leaking of secrets, or treason committed out of ideology, or spite, or plain old greed.

    Because, of course, that would never happen to straight soldier, who are having affairs with people they shouldn’t.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 19, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - December 19, 2010

  108. I’m serious you all. This is causing some serious heartache. And has seriously endangered our coalition for the future.

    And by the reaction here, of gloating over this DADT repeal, you all are causing even more of a wedge.

    Sorry Ol’ beast! Won’t happen again.

    Seriously, are we having a Rodney king moment here?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 19, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - December 19, 2010

  109. I haven’t been gloating. I am a little worried that my being sanguine (defined as optimistic) about this change might be misplaced. My nephew is in the military, I hope it all works out. I’m 75% sure that it will. Eric, I respect what you have to say – and, there are other military people who tell me the opposite of what you do. A couple of them are even here (Nick, John).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 19, 2010 @ 10:56 pm - December 19, 2010

  110. Sonicfrog at #107, you missed my point. Nick claimed he wanted DADT repealed for national security reasons, basically saying that allowing gays to serve openly in the military will prevent security breaches caused by closeted gays being blackmailed (You better get us that info or we’ll tell your CO you’re queer). I was mocking that notion in the comment you partially quoted above. The point I was trying to make is that there are many other reasons why security can be breached and, therefore, Nick’s national security argument for repealing DADT was bogus. I was NOT implying that straight people, civilian or military, were incapable of disloyalty. Sorry you didn’t get that.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 20, 2010 @ 12:09 am - December 20, 2010

  111. It all sure sounds like gloating to me. And as rightwingers we need to be gloating over the demise of the Democrat Party; not about us defeating our friends and allies.

    Again, this has created seriously hard feelings for those of us WHO ARE WITH YOU GUYS ON 100% OF THE REST OF YOUR AGENDA.

    This is the one issue, and the ONLY ONE ISSUE, where we Right-Libertarians disagree with our Gay Conservative buddies on. And you’re really pissin’ on us over this. And quite frankly, it sucks.

    I honestly don’t feel like being buddies and/or allies with you folks any more. It’s going to take a while for me to get over this and find a way back to being aligned with you guys.

    Eric Dondero, publsher
    LibertarianRepublican.net

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 20, 2010 @ 7:38 am - December 20, 2010

  112. Again, this has created seriously hard feelings for those of us WHO ARE WITH YOU GUYS ON 100% OF THE REST OF YOUR AGENDA.

    You are going to hold a grudge on persons that agree with you on everything, except on one issue?

    I honestly don’t feel like being buddies and/or allies with you folks any more.

    If that’s the case, I have to question whether they were buddies or allies with you.

    Comment by Pat — December 20, 2010 @ 7:59 am - December 20, 2010

  113. “It’s going to take a while for me to get over this.”

    Yeah, well, in the meantime we’ll just have to try to carry on.

    “Yellow makes me sad.”

    Jackwagon.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 20, 2010 @ 9:52 am - December 20, 2010

  114. Sorry Seane-Anne, I was trying desperately to catch up on this thread, and didn’t read in context very well.

    Eric…. I’m a libertarian / center right kind of guy. I get in spats with some of the regulars here all the time (ask NDT, American Elephant, ILC). You would stop coming over here, stop being “buddies” (what ever that means) with us over this, the legislative repeal of a policy we didn’t like, something we’ve advocated for since this blog came on line? Really? That sounds more like the response of a liberal than a libertarian.

    You say “we are upset”. Well, I’m a conservative-ish libertarian, and I’m not upset at all. The only guys upset seem to be the regular right wingers opining over the “homosexual agenda” over at Volokh. So far, the only libertarian I’ve come across to have the same feelings about this you are expressing, this “I honestly don’t feel like being buddies and/or allies with you folks any more.” angst… is you.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 20, 2010 @ 10:29 am - December 20, 2010

  115. Seane-Anna:

    Now, finally at comment #110 in this thread, you get around to putting actual words to your argument. Alas, I hope I still am misunderstanding you, because your argument—if I get it correctly—is completely nonsensical.

    The point I was trying to make is that there are many other reasons why security can be breached and, therefore, Nick’s national security argument for repealing DADT was bogus.

    You seem to be suggesting that because other threats to the security of our classified information exist, it’s “bogus” to address this one.

    That logic is laughable, and I’m grateful that those who are charged with our national defense (and the protection of our classified information) don’t share that sophomoric view. By this thinking, it would be “bogus” to investigate how Assange got the Wikileaks information and plug that hole because, well, “there are many other reasons why security can be breached”.

    But then maybe this is more “sarcasm” that I “don’t understand”.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 20, 2010 @ 11:04 am - December 20, 2010

  116. Agree with Pat’s response to this:

    I honestly don’t feel like being buddies and/or allies with you folks any more.

    Then don’t. I mean, your reaction to this or any national event is your choice. I don’t get to control your reactions or your choices. (nor do I wish to)

    It all sure sounds like gloating to me.

    I’m sorry you feel bad. I’ve done as much as I ought to, to reasure you as to my own feeling (i.e. not gloating). If you are going to call me a liar in essence, there’s not much left for us to discuss. At some point, your imagination takes over and I don’t care to stop you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2010 @ 12:04 pm - December 20, 2010

  117. Eric Dondero,

    Again, this has created seriously hard feelings for those of us WHO ARE WITH YOU GUYS ON 100% OF THE REST OF YOUR AGENDA.

    What, exactly is the rest of the gay agenda? Since you agree 100% with it, you must be in a position to inform me.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 20, 2010 @ 12:13 pm - December 20, 2010

  118. [...] an earlier thread, a reader brings up a legitimate beef regarding the treatment of gay and lesbian servicemembers in a post-DADT world. His concern stems [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » DADT Repeal Strengthens Commander’s Hands? — December 20, 2010 @ 12:44 pm - December 20, 2010

  119. ask NDT, American Elephant

    Have we “spatted”?

    Comment by American Elephant — December 20, 2010 @ 3:42 pm - December 20, 2010

  120. I think we have… :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 20, 2010 @ 4:08 pm - December 20, 2010

  121. Well I guess I was wrong about people being adults and rolling with the punches. Now it’s straight peoples turn I guess to DEAL.
    We have had to for how many decades????

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 20, 2010 @ 4:31 pm - December 20, 2010

  122. Gene, ever since about the 1300s.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - December 20, 2010

  123. re 88 .And rusty: I wish you could meet NDT some day

    that would be great, and I think I said it in the past, I would probably give him a big hug too.

    but it would be great to meet most of the folk here.

    and again, ILC, on bended knee a smooch to you.

    Comment by rusty — December 20, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - December 20, 2010

  124. Eewww! That’s SO gay!!! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 20, 2010 @ 7:06 pm - December 20, 2010

  125. Just discovered this bizarre site. I’ve heard of “love your enemies,” but this is ridiculous. What’s next? Jewish Nazis? Black Guys Who Love the KKK?

    Comment by Ray — December 21, 2010 @ 2:16 am - December 21, 2010

  126. Dude! We’ve been around since 2005. Yer slowwwwww.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 22, 2010 @ 1:22 am - December 22, 2010

  127. and can’t come up with anything original either. Coem on Ray, if you’re going to be a pathetic slogan quoting hack, at least get some new material.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 22, 2010 @ 11:00 am - December 22, 2010

  128. Not well thought out. Tons of unintended consequences. For instance. This repeal will open the door for “Trans Gendered” soldiers. What barracks will they be assigned? Also, what about the partially trans gendered? Women who have had their breast removed and take hormones to be male but still have female genitial? Or men who take hormones and have breast implants but still have male genitial? Keep in mind that poor hormone maintenance dictates that when the artificial hormones wear off the previous chacracteristics return. Where will these creatures shower? Will female solders stay in the same baracks as “Chaz Bono”? Or would he/she shower with the men? I don’t believe Chaz has the full male toolset.

    Comment by john — December 23, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - December 23, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.