Gay Patriot Header Image

Military Will Quickly Adapt to DADT Repeal

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:36 pm - December 21, 2010.
Filed under: Blogging,DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell),Military

I haven’t been in much of a mood to blog lately, perhaps it’s the let-down from finishing my Ph.D, perhaps the rain has made me pensive (in the reflective, not melancholy connotation of the word).  (Or perhaps, it’s just wanting to crack the stack of books unrelated to my dissertation that has accumulated.)

Just a few moments ago, via Michelle Malkin‘s Buzzworthy, I caught Cassy Fiano‘s most excellent piece on the repeal of DADT.

Unlike yours truly, she did not favor repeal, but castigates those who contend it will destroy our armed forces:

Why is it so unbelievable that the military would be able to figure out the best way to implement homosexuals serving openly? As the wife of a Marine, I find it deeply insulting to our men and women currently serving with honor to suggest that the mere addition of gay men and women will somehow make our entire military crumble. Understand this: the vast majority of heroes in uniform are better than that. The few that are not won’t last. . . .

Our troops have overcome much worse than the repeal of DADT, and given time, they’ll adapt and overcome this too. It’s too bad that we can’t have the faith in them that they have earned, and so richly deserve.

Read the whole thing.  I mean that.  Just read the whole thing.  (Did someone nominate her for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva?)

Linking and commenting on my AOL piece, Bruce Kesler, another opponent of repeal, alerts us to Max Boot’s must-read reflection on repeal, DADT Will Soon Be a Non-Event:

In a year’s time, I predict, the lifting of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military will have become a non-event. The military will adjust, as it always does, sooner or later, to social trends. The military rules that now govern relations between men and women will be extended to gays. There will undoubtedly be issues of sexual harassment and sexual relations and sexual tensions to handle — just as there are today. But handle them the military will.

Again, read the whole thing.  It’s short.  Both writers, like the bloggers here, have strong respect for our military.  The men and women who can confront terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan can accommodate gays in their ranks.

Share

53 Comments

  1. Thank you for this. I knew this post would be controversial, but I had no idea I would be attacked so vehemently for what I thought was a pretty reasonable, rational, post. And you should see my inbox! Apparently suggesting that the military can handle gay soldiers serving openly is like the worst thing in the world. Funny, considering my husband and I have known several gay Marines who served with honor and did just fine in combat.

    Anyways, its nice to know its appreciated somewhere. 🙂

    Comment by Cassy — December 21, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - December 21, 2010

  2. Gimmee a break. Every lefty diverts the issue to crap like this; Oh golly gee our Troops can handle it.

    THIS IS ABOUT REVERSE DISCRIMINATION!!! The issue nobody wants to talk about, so they all deflect.

    This is about Gay men given the right to leer and gawk at straight men in the showers and in close bunking quarters, while Straight men do not get the same right to leer and gawk at female soldiers and sailors or shower with them.

    Of course, Straight men will get reamed when they point this out; probably called “bigots,” and “homophobes.”

    I am getting so sick and damned tired of this blatant diversion of the issue!

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 21, 2010 @ 8:32 pm - December 21, 2010

  3. She’s right that what’s done is done, and the military will deal with it as professionally as can be done.

    Doesn’t change that it is a completely unnecessary and divisive distraction from far, far higher priorities.

    What happens when you distract people and institution’s focus from their top priorities with totally unnecessary, completely elective crap?

    Stuff like this… “Obama’s Top Intelligence Official Unfamiliar with London Terror Arrests…” oops! Was probably too busy treating global warming like a national security threat. Another completely irresponsible unnecessary distraction.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 21, 2010 @ 8:39 pm - December 21, 2010

  4. Eric, straight men will also be able to gawk and leer at other straight men in the showers as well. So it’s all fair, right? Seriously, your argument sounds like the problem is that straight men won’t be able to gawk at naked women in the showers, as if that is some goal to achieve when entering the military.

    Comment by Pat — December 21, 2010 @ 9:35 pm - December 21, 2010

  5. One other thing…Congratulations, Dr. Blatt. Definitely a huge relief to get the dissertation and the defense done.

    Comment by Pat — December 21, 2010 @ 9:39 pm - December 21, 2010

  6. Yea, I have to agree with her. I’ve always maintained that if other, supposedly lesser, military can handle gay soldiers serving openly, then there is no reason why the best military in the world wouldn’t be able to as well. Sorry she is getting a rough response, but I really appreciated reading her post.

    Comment by AJ — December 21, 2010 @ 11:10 pm - December 21, 2010

  7. What was that about Democrats being the roadblock in getting DADT repealed?

    “Last-Ditch Move to Block Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/last-ditch-move-to-block-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?hp

    Comment by Countervail — December 21, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - December 21, 2010

  8. Cassy, you’ve kept it classy.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — December 22, 2010 @ 12:26 am - December 22, 2010

  9. This is about Gay men given the right to leer and gawk at straight men in the showers and in close bunking quarters, while Straight men do not get the same right to leer and gawk at female soldiers and sailors or shower with them.

    Of course, Straight men will get reamed when they point this out; probably called “bigots,” and “homophobes.”

    No Eric, I don’t think of you as bigoted or homophobic. I think of you more as someone who harps on that strange little point enough (especially after people have tried to give you answers) that it is a little weird. Seriously, it’s not a great point. Which makes it correspondingly weird, to harp on it.

    Newsflash: All men, straight and mostly-straight and bi and gay, already glance at each other a tiny bit in the shower and close quarters. That means you. Partly they can’t help it (the averted-eyes thing can be carried to a point where it becomes silly). Partly they are a little bit curious about how they stack up against you (in physique, dick size, etc.). Partly they may just appreciate beauty (whether or not they put any sexual desire with it). You’ve already been checked out, just a little bit. By straight men. By mostly-straight, bi or gay men who don’t want you, as they really don’t find you attractive. Or by mostly-straight, bi or gay men who might find you attractive. A mixture of “all of the above”. That’s reality.

    Newsflash 2: Having said that, nobody has any “right” to stare/leer/gawk, i.e. to violate politeness and make you feel uncomfortable. If someone is staring/leering/gawking, they are a jerk. Try telling them they are a jerk. Try telling other people they are a jerk. Try covering yourself with a swimsuit or towel. If worse comes to worst, try complaining to the management (or chain of command) about them.

    The other day you told an anecdote about a guy A on your ship, who had been orally raped (while he was passed out) by guy B. I found it odd that you did not call it rape or identify guy B as a rapist, as you ought to have. Instead, you made it sound like guy B was nothing unusual, doing what any gay guy would in his shoes. (Thus justifying a policy like DADT.) Not so.

    By saying I found your slant on it odd (that guy B was an example of problems that could realistically get worse with DADT repeal), I do not at all mean that you’re bigoted. No, no, no. I mean that I’m wondering, again, if you are carrying some emotional baggage that not everyone carries. Eric, were you once raped or molested by a man? Or, as Pat suggested, might you perhaps harbor fantasies about being able to gawk at naken women in the showers?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2010 @ 1:26 am - December 22, 2010

  10. Of course the military will be able to handle this. They did 100 plus years before DADT was ever heard of and we won all the wars. Some of our best Service man in WW2 were gay I could name many which I learned to know after the War. I apparently had several serving with me but I didn’t know it at the time.

    Comment by John W — December 22, 2010 @ 2:41 am - December 22, 2010

  11. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Reid McLain. Reid McLain said: GayPatriot – Military Will Quickly Adapt to DADT Repeal http://bit.ly/dVXYpu […]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » Military Will Quickly Adapt to DADT Repeal -- Topsy.com — December 22, 2010 @ 3:36 am - December 22, 2010

  12. ILC, I would put it this way.

    Two weeks ago, my partner and I went to the Castro Gold’s Gym to work out. Afterwards, I asked if he was going to take steam. His response was instructive: “No, it feels weird to be the only guy in there not getting off.”

    Note that this is a public place. There are signs everywhere warning against inappropriate behavior. It is made clear in the member agreement that you will be kicked out. There have been numerous complaints made to management and even to the SF Health Department, since people are essentially leaving ejaculate all over the place in it.

    And nothing happens.

    Keep in mind that these same nutjobs are now running the country. Obama has never once in his life done anything other than what the hard loopy left wants. HRC, NGLTF, and the other Gay, Inc. Groups are screaming “homophobe” at anyone who dares criticize a gay person’s conduct and are finding creative reasons to defend traitors like Bradley Manning. The admiral in charge has told soldiers that they will accept whatever gays and lesbians do or they need to get out of the military. You have a military brass who not only promoted the Fort Hood shooter, but whose primary worry after he killed people was that it would negatively affect their diversity programs.

    It doesn’t take having been raped or molested. All it takes is looking at the situation and asking if you trust Obama, Gay Inc., and a military command structure that is clearly more interested in diversity than soldiers’ welfare, and the answer becomes much clearer.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2010 @ 11:25 am - December 22, 2010

  13. NDT, I understand what you’re saying. And: the Castro isn’t the military, or the country. To Cassy Fiano’s point, the military is rather better than that.

    I’m perceiving an idea/fear here that the repeal of DADT means an influx of Gay Left types (let’s say) into the military. I highly doubt it. The recruiting process won’t change, and they wouldn’t make it past that, much less past boot camp. Additionally, I doubt there is going to be an exodus (or significant refusal to re-enlist) among the people already in the military. I don’t agree with the premise that the brass is “more interested in diversity than soldiers’ welfare”, as there are military-effectiveness reasons for ending DADT – like not having to spend valuable resources on investigating thousands of people (including some straights who misuse the gay ban, to get out early with an honorable discharge that they don’t deserve). Nick (CP) has explained why the repeal of DADT gives commanders *more* freedom to do their jobs.

    Finally, the following may be a discussion for another time, but I disagree with the premise that Obama’s crew necessarily runs the military. I think the military guided/pressured them into accepting Gates, an Afghanistan surge, etc. Gates is leaving in the new year, but then there will also be a Republican (i.e. defense-conscious) Congress investigating anything that goes awry. The DADT repeal legislation makes clear that Obama must tread carefully and will be blamed if anything goes wrong.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - December 22, 2010

  14. I do want to drill down a little on this:

    The admiral in charge has told soldiers that they will accept whatever gays and lesbians do or they need to get out of the military.

    What do you mean? I might have missed it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2010 @ 12:17 pm - December 22, 2010

  15. Yes, in a year, the military will have adjusted. Let’s just hope that in 15 years, that adjustment hasn’t meant that enlistment is down and the draft returns. Remember, only 15% of the gays in the military planned to actually come out after DADT repeal. I wonder which 15% that may be. A vocal, needy minority, maybe?

    Comment by Brendan in Philly — December 22, 2010 @ 12:23 pm - December 22, 2010

  16. NDT, i live 2 blocks from the gay area in Chicago, and there is a gym there that no one wacks off in and they’ll get kicked out of the club if they do. They may have bath house and otherthings. but it seems to me gay men are as able to control their behavior as straight men, and act appropriately in public. I know I’ve never been approached or seen anything or been made to feel uncomfortable.

    Of course, that is chicago boys’ town, not the castro, and there are more straight people around. There is a bath house available for that if they want, so people keep it out of the health club.

    So does my anecdote trump your anecdote? Or are anecdotes not something we should be basing policy on?

    Even my father, a former Marine and conservative and certainly not pro gay, doesn’t think it will matter. Though he is more concerned about aids and blood getting all over, and thinks gay men should have their own units. however, isn’t this a problem among hetero soldiers anyway? You never know who has what disease.

    Comment by plutosdad — December 22, 2010 @ 12:51 pm - December 22, 2010

  17. It’s nice to see the Republicans post-facto supporting the passage of the repeal:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/last-ditch-move-to-block-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/#more-125123

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 22, 2010 @ 1:11 pm - December 22, 2010

  18. For possibly the first (maybe the second) time, I agree with everything ILC has said. As for Cassy’s post, while I had a couple of quibbles (the only “special treatment” has been the whole DADT system; getting rid of it will put gay and lesbian soldiers on the same footing and subject to the same discipline as the rest of the troops), I also found the overwhelming bulk of it to be spot-on.

    It really reminded me of watching the JCS during the Senate hearing. Even Gens. Casey and Amos, two of the most outspoken critics from the military of the policy, had a respect and faith in their troops that some of the senators seemed to lack. The generals basically said, “If you order us to do this, we will do it. We will do it well, we will do it effectively, and our troops will meet the challenge successfully as they have every other challenge.”

    The men and women in our armed services face challenges every day far more worse than a fear of being leered or gawked at. They are shot at by snipers, injured and killed by IEDs, betrayed by local tribal leaders, and so forth. In light of that, one may argue that this is not the time to be changing a policy that could modify the social structure of a combat unit. I disagree, but I can respect that argument. What I can’t respect is the suggestion, actual or implied, that the men and women in our armed forces do not have the ability, honor or intelligence to adapt to getting rid of this policy.

    Comment by CR — December 22, 2010 @ 1:24 pm - December 22, 2010

  19. If they could still have non-judicial remedies for homosexual conduct involving force, public acts, prostitution, minors, acts that are otherwise prejudicial to discipline and good order, and acts that otherwise discredit the armed services, they should be able to deal with it.

    But without explicit statutory authority, a serviceman administratively discharged for the reasons that I have listed could challenge the action in court, and if the challenge is ultimately upheld, the only instrument available will be a court-martial.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — December 22, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - December 22, 2010

  20. You were working on your Ph.D?!? Why didn’t you tell us.

    Comment by Draybee — December 22, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - December 22, 2010

  21. “Strange little point”!!!!

    Fuck you. Fuck you and your goddamned Lefty mother fucking friends. It ain’t no goddamned “strange little point.” IT IS THE POINT!!!!

    WHY IN THE FUCK DO GAY GUYS GET TO LEER AND GAWK AT ME IN THE SHOWER AND HIT ON ME IN MY BUNK SPACE AND I DON’T GET THE SAME RIGHT TO DO THE SAME FOR FEMALE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS???

    Eric Dondero, USN 1981-85

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 22, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - December 22, 2010

  22. That’s the point. Gay Men DO NOT CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIOR.

    I was on a ship for 4 years. They’re fine for the most part, until they start drinking. They come back to the ship all slockered and start agressively hitting on the straight guys and even forcing themselves on straights. But of course, that’s politically incorrect to say, so it gets ignored.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 22, 2010 @ 7:20 pm - December 22, 2010

  23. The US Military is about MASCULINITY.

    Don’t kid yourselves into believing this is just some “civil rights issue.” It is a deliberate attempt by the Left to destroy Masculinity and Masculine values, and to further erode the rights of Straight Men in our society, who are already suffering severely from the Obama-induces Recession against Males.

    And Gay guys, including some Conservative Gays, who are usually cool on about 90% of all other issues, are siding with the Liberals to destroy their once Straight Male friends.

    As if we Straight males are going to easily forget y’all’s betrayal.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 22, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - December 22, 2010

  24. The US Military is about MASCULINITY.

    Don’t kid yourselves into believing this is just some “civil rights issue.” It is a deliberate attempt by the Left to destroy Masculinity and Masculine values, and to further erode the rights of Straight Men in our society, who are already suffering severely from the Obama-induces Recession against Males.

    And Gay guys, including some Conservative Gays, who are usually cool on about 90% of all other issues, are siding with the Liberals to destroy their once Straight Male friends.

    As if we Straight males are going to easily forget y’all’s betrayal.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 22, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - December 22, 2010

  25. “further erode the rights of Straight Men in our society, who are already suffering severely from the Obama-induces Recession against Males.”

    “siding with the Liberals to destroy their once Straight Male friends.”

    Wow.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 22, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - December 22, 2010

  26. Actually, men are suffering far more severely unemployment-wise from Obama’s recession.

    Mainly because the Obama administration and Obama Party discriminate on the basis of gender.

    Not that this is atypical; the Obama Party and the Obama administration have already made it clear that discrimination against white people is acceptable.

    So really, why shouldn’t people expect that the Obama Party and the Obama administration will discriminate?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - December 22, 2010

  27. Fuck you. Fuck you and your goddamned Lefty mother fucking friends.

    Well, I guess that settles it. What an effective argument. (Not.)

    I’ve been called many things, but it’s been awhile since anyone has called me a lefty. Wow, indeed.

    The US Military is about MASCULINITY.

    And honorable guys who happen to be gay, i.e. same-sex oriented – like the ones already doing a great job in the military – aren’t masculine? Really?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2010 @ 9:48 pm - December 22, 2010

  28. Obama’s recession – or more accurately, non-recovery; his policies that violate freedom and hamper recovery from the 2008 recession – are an assault on everybody.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2010 @ 10:06 pm - December 22, 2010

  29. So does my anecdote trump your anecdote?

    Not really. Your anecdote is akin to how gays and lesbians behaved under DADT, when there was clearly a penalty for and dissuading of such behavior. Nor is it as innocent as you think.

    Mine is the reality of what happens when such penalties are removed and when the Obama Party and liberal left uses the courts and the political system. Such as we have now.

    As I have already cited, the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community have made it clear that they consider it homophobic and illegal to fire gay and lesbian people who sexually harass others.

    Whether our troops can handle this sort of behavior is not at question. Our troops could learn to fight in burkas if they needed to do so. But in this case, what is the need, and why on earth would you implement it under an administration of proven racists and minority grievance-mongerers who believe that straight, white, and male people have no rights?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2010 @ 10:23 pm - December 22, 2010

  30. I commend patriotic American men and women, whatever skin color and sexual orientation, who join the American Military to do their job of defending and supporting innocent lives all over the World.

    I find it ironic that gay people and women are persecuted under Islamic Regimes; while American soldiers, who also happen to be gay or female, are defending the civil rights of fellow women and gay people at those Muslim countries. Our great and benevolent country of America needs to stand up against Islamic supremacy, not just militarily, but also ideologically so all innocent lives are saved. This could mean that gay people and women in America need to start standing with intelligent Liberals and Conservatives, like Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, to battle Islam ideologically so they don’t experience social terrorism (ie. “hate crimes” and honor killings committed by Muslims in American society = social terrorism) and the Islamic Sharia Law (political aspect of Islam) in their own country.

    Let’s pray for a better economy, national security, and foreign policy in the coming months under a refreshed Congress.

    Comment by Totakikay — December 22, 2010 @ 10:26 pm - December 22, 2010

  31. I do want to drill down a little on this:

    It’s about this statement.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2010 @ 10:37 pm - December 22, 2010

  32. NDT >>

    Post 29, paragraph 4

    You have ONE person who was fired for inappropriate behavior and tried to turn it into a case of homophobia … and lost. There are all kinds of illegitimate complaints involving racism, sexism, etc.

    Again, the guy cried wolf and lost.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 22, 2010 @ 11:09 pm - December 22, 2010

  33. “WHY IN THE FUCK DO GAY GUYS GET TO LEER AND GAWK AT ME IN THE SHOWER AND HIT ON ME IN MY BUNK SPACE AND I DON’T GET THE SAME RIGHT TO DO THE SAME FOR FEMALE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS???”

    Wow.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 22, 2010 @ 11:16 pm - December 22, 2010

  34. Military Will Quickly Adapt to DADT Repeal

    …yes they will adapt. Dunno how quickly, and it wont come without pain, division, loss, and disruption — as the Pentagon report acknowledged (for those who actually read it).

    WHY IN THE FUCK DO GAY GUYS GET TO LEER AND GAWK AT ME IN THE SHOWER AND HIT ON ME IN MY BUNK SPACE AND I DON’T GET THE SAME RIGHT TO DO THE SAME FOR FEMALE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS???

    Eric Dondero, USN 1981-85

    Oh yeah, this was a brilliant thing to do during wartime! Brilliant! See how the military just LOVES it! Awesome priorities guys!

    Stop trying to justify entirely f**ked up priorities by pretending its all proof of how awesome the military is.

    Yes, the military is awesome. That doesn’t make this bill any less irresponsible, divisive, and inexcusable during wartime. Nor does it make your priorities any less fucked up than the left’s.

    Indeed. There is not a speck of daylight between the left’s f**ked up national defense priorities and those here who support this repeal. When it came down to brass tacks you fell in line with the gay left and erred on the side of the “gay agenda” over what is best for the military in wartime. I guess that’s why this is called GAY patriot, instead of patriots who happen to be gay. In the end, it’s just as gay-agenda-uber-alles as the left.

    Hell, I was in the closet until my third year of college, I lived in a Fraternity where I was afraid of being outed much of the time. I lived with them 24/7. I worried I might get kicked out if the guys found out. I know from personal experience that keeping your sexuality under wraps is NOT torturous as the left makes it out to be, its not even that big a deal, at the VERY worst it is unpleasant.

    So in one breath you are arguing that gay military members cannot handle, and it is unfair to even ask them to handle mild unpleasantness, while simultaneously telling everyone who objects to suck it up, you can handle it, the military can handle anything!

    Of course they can, but so could the 15% of the tiny percent who are gays in the military who insist they can’t live without telling everyone at work they’re here, they’re queer, get used to it.

    Gay left, gay right? Same damn thing apparently.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 23, 2010 @ 1:09 am - December 23, 2010

  35. WHY IN THE FUCK DO GAY GUYS GET TO LEER AND GAWK AT ME IN THE SHOWER AND HIT ON ME IN MY BUNK SPACE AND I DON’T GET THE SAME RIGHT TO DO THE SAME FOR FEMALE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS?

    And the answer, one more time, is that gay sailors DON’T, or SHOULDN’T, get to do that. And that, as Nick as said, the repeal of “Don’t Ask” will actually HELP commanders to discipline bad sailors, i.e. will actually IMPROVE the situation.

    I am starting to put 2 and 2 together here. Eric, by his comments, reveals implicitly that when he was in the Navy, he was hit upon – right in his bunk space. I am starting to wonder if Eric’s anecdote about a sexual assault in the bunks was, in fact, about himself: that he was the subject of the sexual assault, and was then let down (not to say abandoned) by his chain of command who failed to deal with the rapist.

    Whether or not my guess is correct, it’s a sad story and I’m sad that some sailor was first assaulted, then let down by his chain of command. But gays (as a general group) shouldn’t be blamed for it. No one, not gays, not nobody, gets to (or should get to) leer/gawk in the naval shower, hit on people in quarters, or commit sexual assaults of any kind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2010 @ 1:54 am - December 23, 2010

  36. WHY IN THE F*CK DO GAY GUYS GET TO LEER AND GAWK AT ME IN THE SHOWER AND HIT ON ME IN MY BUNK SPACE

    And the answer, one more time, is that gay sailors DON’T, or SHOULDN’T, get to do that. And that, as Nick as said, the repeal of “Don’t Ask” will actually HELP commanders to discipline the bad sailors, i.e. will actually IMPROVE the situation.

    I am starting to put 2 and 2 together here. Eric, by his comments, reveals implicitly that when he was in the Navy, he was hit upon – right in his bunk space. I am starting to wonder if Eric’s anecdote about a sexual assault in the bunks was, in fact, about himself: that he was the subject of the sexual assault, and was then let down (not to say abandoned) by his chain of command who failed to deal with the rapist.

    Whether or not my guess is correct, it’s a sad story and I’m sad that some sailor was first assaulted, then let down by his chain of command. But gays (as a general group) shouldn’t be blamed for it. No one, not gays, not nobody, gets to (or should get to) leer/gawk in the naval shower, hit on people in quarters, or commit sexual assaults of any kind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2010 @ 1:56 am - December 23, 2010

  37. I am sure the military will handle the repeal of DADT with it usual aplomb. There will be a settling in period, a few scratch your head moments and then life will go on. I am a veteran of the US Navy. DADT repeal will not be a problem. Though I did tease one of my Marine Corps veteran buddies about a new Marine Corps motto….”The few, the proud….the fabulous”, I think it has a cerain ring to it!

    Comment by Bob T — December 23, 2010 @ 9:05 am - December 23, 2010

  38. Sorry for my duplicate comment. The first one got spamfiltered, the second was just a little experiment against the spamfilter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2010 @ 12:04 pm - December 23, 2010

  39. NDT, re: the “man-cession”… I hadn’t seen the AEI piece. Interesting. But it stands to reason: men have been more in manufacturing and construction which have been hardest hit, women more in government and services which have, unfortunately for the rest of us, boomed under the Democrats. It’s academic (I hope), because government and services are going to suffer world-altering cutbacks… just give it a couple more years to play out.

    Along the lines of “even a broken clock is right twice a day”, it looks like the feminist economists who influenced the Obama spending plans got one little thing right: Indeed, the government should not be subsidizing construction.

    All in all though, the piece is a glimpse into the sheer B.S. that goes into Obama policy-making. So I have to give you that point: One can’t trust the Obama administration to do things right. When they get something right, either it’s by chance, or because the GOP was watching and the whole thing got out of their control.

    So yeah, I am forced to *hope* the military is going to be left on its own to do DADT repeal correctly – under the protective eye of the new GOP Congress. And I don’t feel great that once again, Obama has given me such *hope*.

    Which brings me to your link to Admiral Mullen’s statement. I wish I had the full context. What the article quotes of it, might not be that bad:

    “Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service,” Mullen said. “We’ll deal with that.”

    Mullen added that “there is no gray area” in the debate when it comes to standards of conduct in the military. “We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work. Period,” he said.

    I think it’s better than the headline suggests. Mullen seems to be saying, the military will work it out, and work it out right. And he is plain right, that if people can’t stand military policy X – for whatever reason; it could as easily be a Castro clone who can’t stand the deprivations, or being told not to gawk – then they shouldn’t work there.

    I also found this interesting:

    Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. Cater F. Ham, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, and Pentagon chief counsel Jeh Johnson… argued that not moving quickly [to repeal DADT] leaves the U.S. military to the mercy of U.S. courts that may order a repeal of the policy before the Defense Department can act on its own toward implementing an orderly transition.

    Once more, that suggests to me that the DADT repeal was/is ultimately military-driven. Meaning that yes, we have a decent chance that will turn out right.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - December 23, 2010

  40. To be clear: I must disagree that it was fair to characterize Mullen’s comment this way:

    The admiral in charge has told soldiers that they will accept whatever gays and lesbians do or they need to get out of the military.

    Assuming we are talking about the same comment. (What I quoted of Mullen, above.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - December 23, 2010

  41. Listen, if we want to do this right, we should wait until the Marxist is out of office.

    Just as with every other issue, the repeal of DADT will give the Social Justice quota-loving crowd another excuse to drive wedges between the people of the United States. Each person must be categorized and classified in order to determine the level of their rights that will be honored. This situation is no different.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Obama administration demanded that brand new Gay recruits be promoted to 4-star General to make up for past wrongs. Gays in the military are annoying to some, but Liberals in the military is a recipe for disaster. They will screw up the military effectiveness, and they’re going to alienate a whole lot of people in the process.

    Race relations in the United States have been set back 20 years by Progressive policies. If you thought there was homophobia before, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 23, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - December 23, 2010

  42. “And he is plain right, that if people can’t stand military policy X – for whatever reason; it could as easily be a Castro clone who can’t stand the deprivations, or being told not to gawk – then they shouldn’t work there.”

    You don’t believe that, ILC. If you did you would’ve said that to gays bitching about DADT. If they didn’t like the policy they should’ve left the military, or not signed up in the first place. But you apply the if-people-don’t-like-the-policy-they-shouldn’t-work-there standard only to those who oppose the repeal of DADT. It’s as American Elephant said: Gay left, gay right? Same damn thing.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 24, 2010 @ 6:42 pm - December 24, 2010

  43. Seane-Anna, I do agree with you about something here. Yes, when DADT was the policy in the military, any gay person going in, knew (or should have known) what the policy was when deciding to enter the military. So they knew that they had to keep their sexuality a secret, and play pronoun games. In time, more and more people realized what a stupid policy it was, and it was finally overturned. So now people entering the military will know what the new policy is. And yes, I suppose there are a few dinosaurs with hang ups out there who may not join the military because of it. Frankly, I believe our military will be better because of the new policy.

    But I do disagree with you (and American Elephant) about gay right and gay left. Plenty of differences. First of all, Gay Patriot and Dan from the beginning have always stated their support for repealing DADT. Perhaps this is one position in which most gay person on the right and left actually agreed on. Heck, more and more people on the right are realizing how silly DADT was. But on almost all other issues that define the right and left, most of the posters side with the (non-extreme) right.

    But as we see, there are some gay posters, such as American Elephant that disagreed with the repeal. Are they also the same as the gay left?

    Comment by Pat — December 25, 2010 @ 1:38 pm - December 25, 2010

  44. Pat, why will the military be better just because gay servicemen can now be open about their sexuality? Nothing will improve the military like gays being able to openly French kiss each other on base. Yeah, right. That’s the kind of fawning attitude towards gays that’s so repugnant to me.

    And what’s with the “dinosaurs with hang ups” quip? Why do you have to be a “dinosaur with hang ups” if you refuse to march lockstep with the gay agenda? That’s the kind of demeaning rhetoric that gays and their straight enablers constantly use to intimidate people into supporting their agenda. People don’t want to be a “dinosaur” anymore than they want to be a “bigot”. They can avoid both labels by rushing to embrace the “correct”, liberal view of homosexuality. I suppose that’s what you mean by the “non-extreme” Right. That’s the Right that takes the social Left’s position on gays, right?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 25, 2010 @ 8:57 pm - December 25, 2010

  45. I’m a bit mystified why a few posters drill down (pun intended) to the red herring of PDA by gay servicemembers post-DADT. Perhaps if there was some understanding of how the UCMJ regards PDA by hetero servicemembers- even married ones- there might be far less presumption that openly gay personnel will necessarily be “French kissing” on base. When in uniform on base, one doesn’t do that. Now, understandably, this curtailment of affection is honored more in the breach, especially for homecoming/leave-taking- all good for the family unit. Still I believe a more fair and equal treatment of all servicemembers ought to result from this repeal. We civilians can expect that our military personnel will be adults, and that the senior officers and NCO’s will enforce downwards the UCMJ (modernized for everyone because the Code desperately needs it). I really don’t comprehend the unseemly focus on physicality to the veritable exclusion of how grown-ups really behave, especially within the strictures of the military organization. Perhaps some Americans still dwell in our Puritan, sex-negative Past. Let’s focus on The Redemption and not The Fall!

    Comment by Bryan — December 25, 2010 @ 10:49 pm - December 25, 2010

  46. Perhaps if there was some understanding of how the UCMJ regards PDA by hetero servicemembers- even married ones- there might be far less presumption that openly gay personnel will necessarily be “French kissing” on base. When in uniform on base, one doesn’t do that.

    And there are laws, court decisions, and policies that make it clear that you should not sexually harass your coworkers, and yet the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party insist that sexual harassment is normal for gays and lesbians and that disciplining/firing them for doing so is “homophobic”.

    Long story short, you are expecting us to believe that the most racist, minority-obsessed administration in history, as well as its puppets like Admiral Mullen who think “diversity” is more important than military readiness and discipline, are actually going to enforce a law that would upset the gay and lesbian community — and that the same gay and lesbian community that defends sexual harassment would tolerate them doing so.

    Again: The Obama administration openly refuses to enforce laws and rules against minorities who misbehave. The Obama administration brands as “stupid”, racist, and homophobic those who enforce laws and rules against minorities who misbehave. The Obama administration deliberately ignores and disenfranchises military voters by blocking their ballots from being mailed and counted.

    And you expect us to believe they will allow the UCMJ to be enforced?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 26, 2010 @ 1:44 am - December 26, 2010

  47. NDT…”One Note Samba” is a lovely song by Tom Jobim, yet, like your comments, it does play within a range of two notes, F and B flat. After five or six bars, one knows the tune is the same.

    Comment by Bryan — December 26, 2010 @ 3:13 am - December 26, 2010

  48. “gays being able to openly French kiss each other on base”

    Seane-Ana, does anyone take you seriously with these kind of remarks?

    I mean, really? What planet do you live on?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 26, 2010 @ 4:01 am - December 26, 2010

  49. NDT >> Again, that link you provided is about a guy who cried wolf AND LOST. As in, no one took him seriously What in the heck is your point?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 26, 2010 @ 4:02 am - December 26, 2010

  50. As in, no one took him seriously

    Wrong.

    So very, very wrong.

    Do you see that, Vince, especially in the last link? That’s your Obama Party out there. That’s your union “friends” out there. That’s your gay and lesbian community there. They all took it seriously. They were screaming that Hornblower was a bunch of “bigots”, that they were “homophobic”, and that they “hate gays”. They were trying to attack and shut down this business. They were demanding that it be stripped of government contracts.

    Why should the military be required to put up with this? Better yet, why should anyone believe that the same Obama Party that was out there screaming this is going to treat that company or the military fairly?

    And should we expect YOU to stop them? You’re in here spinning for them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 26, 2010 @ 11:57 am - December 26, 2010

  51. NDT >>

    The links you provided showed about ten people protesting.

    The most current link you provide on this thread:

    Nov 15 “”In short, the investigators said, Atos was “terminated for inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace.””

    The guy cried wolf and lost. Finished, done, end of discussion. Get over it.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm - December 26, 2010

  52. #48, you don’t get sarcasm, do you? But I stand by the point you chose to miss, namely, that it’s nonsensical to believe that openly gay soldiers will improve the military simply by being openly gay.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 26, 2010 @ 10:45 pm - December 26, 2010

  53. as we see, there are some gay posters… that disagreed with the repeal. Are they also the same as the gay left?

    Pat, excellent point. Many extreme gay leftists opposed DADT repeal on the grounds that gays shouldn’t care about an oppressive institution like the military, period. So, in reality, the extreme Gay Left and the extreme anti-gay Right have the same position.

    If I were to apply some of the stupid reasoning thrown around in this thread, I would now accuse certain obvious (extreme) rightists here of being extreme leftists. But I’m not quite that desperate, or stupid or whatever it is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 28, 2010 @ 3:15 pm - December 28, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.