There is some good news today; the administration certified the final repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell:
Service members today welcomed a key milestone in repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), as President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, formally issued their certification to the Armed Services committees of both houses of Congress, signifying that the military is ready for the transition. In 60 days, as prescribed in the law passed by Congress and signed by the President last December, repeal will be final.
So much better to have the military certify this than have a court mandate it. The president dilly-dallied on this one, delaying this day. But, with pressure from left-wing gay bloggers and indeed some principled congressional Democrats as well as at least one Senate Republican, he finally acted.
One reason Obama succeeded where Bill Clinton failed was that the Illinois Democrat, unlike his Arkansas counterpart, made this a military issue rather than a gay rights’ issue. Whereas Clinton moved to repeal the ban while standing beside Barney Frank, Obama sought to repeal the legislation Clinton signed by dispatching his top military aides to Capitol Hill.
Kudos to all those who worked hard to make this day come to pass. Our nation will be more secure when it can draw on the strengths and patriotism of gay men and lesbian who wish to serve the country which has given us so many opportunities, chief among them, the ability to live free.
Ditto Kudos to all those who worked hard to make this day come to pass.
A military issue rather than a gay rights issue? Are you freaking kidding me?! Dan, the more you open your mouth, er, post on this blog, the more you expose yourself for the dishonest social liberal you really are.
Repealing DADT wasn’t a gay rights issue? Come on! If it wasn’t a gay rights issue, Dan, then why do you claim that “the nation will be more secure” now that homosexuals can French kiss each other on base, or whatever being openly gay in the military actually means. I mean, how, exactly, does having openly gay soldiers make America more secure? Will it make our weapons deadlier? Will it make our enemies fear us more? Will it give us some sort of strategic or tactical edge over them? If this is a military issue, then explain!
But this isn’t a military issue, Dan, and you know that. We all know that. Repealing DADT was about legitimizing homosexuality, pure and simple. Don’t give me that nonsense about caring about military readiness. You never cared about military readiness, Dan, and neither did all the other people who pushed for repeal. If military readiness mattered to you, then you would’ve accepted DADT since it did NOT harm military readiness, as shown by the brilliant performance of our troops in hot conflicts. No, Dan, what matters to you and the other pro-repeal activists is getting that official stamp of approval on your libido, and turning a major cultural institution into a conduit for your leftist social engineering and anti-traditionalist hostility.
Just admit it, dude.
One reason I’m glad this is now a done deal is that the hysterical rantings of folks like Seane-Anna over DADT will begin to fade away as the military marches on. That in itself is worthy of a rare kudos to Obama.
John at #3, thanks for avoiding my point and, thereby, proving it.
In my “hysterical ranting” in my comment at #2, I wasn’t taking aim at DADT repeal per se but, rather, with Dan’s dishonest characterization of it as a military rather than a gay rights issue. Again, the fact that you sidestepped that point just proves it.
JohnAGJ, the military may “march on” with DADT repeal, but it would’ve marched on without it, too, but you “repealniks” didn’t care about that. The spot on performance of the US military didn’t matter to you so long as gay soldiers had to keep mum about their libido. You think I’m wrong about that, John? Then why was repeal necessary? Can you explain, in strictly military terms, why it HAD to be done? No, you can’t.
And just in case you still can’t/don’t/won’t see that this is a gay rights issue, what about gay soldiers who come from gay marriage states and may have “husbands” or “wives” back home? Will the military be required to treat those relationships the same as normal marriages? Will military chaplains be forced to perform the weddings of gay soldiers? What if the military, in any way, shape, or form, is deemed insufficiently supportive of the gay lifestyle. Will you support a gay soldier filing a lawsuit that could result in a Supreme Court decision that will do for gay marriage what Roe v Wade did for abortion? Indeed, I’ve long suspected that the true motivation for repeal of DADT is the hope that it will produce a lawsuit that will impose gay marriage on the whole nation in one fell swoop. You can call that hysterical, JohnAGJ, but you can’t disprove it.
Seane-Anna is one of those who make it hard to remember that not all our opponents are motivated by anti-gay animus.
Rob at #5, accusing me of “anti-gay animus” doesn’t address the points I raised. Why must I have “anti-gay animus” for taking issue with what I see as the deliberate mischaracterization of an issue by a gay person? Or is such dishonesty ok so long as it’s practiced by someone gay?
folk on the fence regarding the Mo’s in the military, advocating for SSM, etc. are just sheeple, not sure how to take a stand. SA has drawn her line in the sand. Sad though, for those who don’t play well with others usually find themselves excluded from the sandbox. and aren’t call upon for money.
“5.Seane-Anna is one of those who make it hard to remember that not all our opponents are motivated by anti-gay animus.”
Really? I don’t get that from her/his posts. What makes you post that? I’ve rarely seen anyone respond to her/his points.
“…for those who don’t play well with others usually find themselves excluded from the sandbox.”
Freudian slip, Rusty? Everyone must “play well with others”, i.e., march lockstep with the agenda of “Gay, Inc.” and the (social) Left generally, or find themselves “excluded from the sandbox”? Hmmmmm, kinda sounds like you’re advocating some “soft” totalitarianism there. For shame!
Dan didn’t say it was a military issue. What he said was that Obama was successful on the issue where Clinton was not because Obama framed it in military terms. Obama made it an issue about the military, not about social change. Nothing illustrates this more (I think) than Adm. Mullen’s testimony on the hill.
Well, for starters the dozen or so needed Aarabic linguists that the military spent millions training only to boot out because they were gay can now serve openly. Given the GWOT, having more Arabic linguists ready and willing to serve – and who are incredibly well qualified – certainly helps make America more secure.
See the point I just made about Arabic linguists. Add to that the very real possibility that closeted gay soldiers are a potential security threat because they may be more easily blackmailed. Also, closeted soldiers may have issues with their ability to focus properly when their loved ones at home are also in the closet. These are all the things serious people in this debate have been arguing for years. Not hyperventilating about legitimizing homosexuality.
They should. Simple as that. There is nothing abnormal about that civil marriage.
They aren’t now if it goes against their religious beliefs. But all chaplains are governed by the military’s chaplain regulations, and if those change, the chaplains can change with it. My guess is it won’t, and there will be plenty of chaplains more than happy to officiate. As there have been many who have expressed that willingness already. Because not all Christians oppose gay marriage.
And one final thought…
I appreciate that you believe this, but your side already lost that war. And it’s evident by the speed at which this repeal happened, and the complete non-event it was. That is because the generation (or perhaps 2) that makes up our fighting forces is overwhelmingly supportive of the GLBT community. While the military itself may lean more socially conservative than other institutions, this idea that homosexuality isn’t “legitimate” is foreign to most of the young people that serve. I myself have been surprised at how many of my fellow officers – the guys and gals that stayed in the service when I got out – are supportive of repeal. And those are the officers that are the majors and lieutenant colonels. Not a bunch of butter bars that don’t have any real military experience yet. No offense, Seane-Anna, but I put a whole more stock in their opinions on this issue than on yours. I respect what you have to say, but I think you’re just wrong.
That said, the military’s own internal blind studies show a tiny percentage of our military, like the rest of the country, is gay, and a very tiny percentage of that small number even want to serve openly in the first place.
Also, while the generation that makes up our fighting forces may indeed be pro gay and anti-DADT, the same military study found that the vast majority of troops were not, and that conservative Christians are enormously overrepresented.Your anecdotes notwithstanding.
The biggest supporters for repeal have ALWAYS been gay activists outside the military. Dan Savage, Joe My God, Andrew Sullivan, etc… I expect if there is any change, recruitment will go down. As the reports also, in very couched diplomatic speak, also confirmed.
That anyone ever pretended this was about improving the military (again, same report admits it would have negative consequences, but that they thought the military could manage them) has always risible.
as Dan lays bare with his closing line, that finally gays and lesbians are able to live free! *gag* as if they weren’t before.
Social and military experimentation for the sake of gays with delusions of victimization.
This is partly where I have to disagree with you, AE:
Perhaps those people have been the most vocal, but I would argue it’s only because they also have the largest megaphones. The people who have been most supportive of repeal have been the gay servicemembers and veterans themselves.
You make a good point about the percentage of gays that want to serve. It is small. I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean gays and lesbians are not fit to serve openly, which is and should be the crux of the issue. And I’ll try to rephrase something I said above. It is unimportant how many or what percentage of the military is made up of conservative Christians who oppose homosexuality. We don’t have a Christian Army, we have an Army. And it is an Army that should be made up of all who are fit to serve and willing to do so.
I have never though this is about improving the military. Rather this issue (for me anyway) has been about opening the ranks to another person who is fit to serve. Perhaps at the end of the day that can improve the military, but that is dependent on each and every individual recruit. Some will be good, some will be bad.
If I may respectfully suggest so, you should re-read Dan’s last line. It is definitely about gays and lesbians already living free. Now we have the opportunity to give back to the country that made us so by serving openly and honorably.
“Social and military experimentation for the sake of gays with delusions of victimization.”
BINGO!!!!!! Short, sweet, and straight for the jugular as only AE can do it!
Neptune, I understand your point that Dan was saying that the Obama administration succeeding in repealing DADT because it framed it as a military rather than a gay rights issue. However, Dan supported that dishonest move by the Obama administration and also engaged in the same dishonesty himself, claiming on several occasions prior to repeal that all he was concerned with was military readiness and that he might oppose repeal if it could be shown that it would harm said readiness. I pointed out then, as now, that if military readiness were truly his foremost concern then Dan would support the status quo as DADT hadn’t harmed military readiness, as shown by the military’s performance.
Neptune, the Obama’s administration’s framing of DADT repeal as a military rather than social issue was dishonest. Repeal was done to advance a key component of the Left’s social agenda. It had no military value whatsoever. And it’s the support of such dishonesty by people like Dan that has caused me to become more and more disillusioned with gay conservatives.
What American Elephant wrote so many months ago, that the gay Right is committed to the same agenda as the gay Left, is so true. As with gay liberals, what matters most, even only, to (most) gay “conservatives” is creating a society that not only allows, but encouraes and celebrates, the open and promiscuous expression of their desire. And they are willing to use any tactic, no matter how dishonest or Orwellian, to achieve that goal.
I thought that gay conservatives were different. I thought that they, like other conservatives, were committed to critiquing and opposing the Left on all levels: political, fiscal, and social. How wrong I was. Gay “conservatives” want to implement social liberalism and make conservatism a conduit for it and the anti-traditionalist, anti-Christian worldview that undergirds it. Like I said, recognizing that reality has been very disillusioning. But at least now I know the truth. I just have to decide what it means for me as a conservative.
I appreciate the invite to debate this once again, SA, but I’ll decline. You aren’t going to change my mind and I owe you nothing in this. The reverse is obviously true as well. DADT repeal is a done deal and further discussion about it is pointless.
Seane-Anna said, “I’ve long suspected that the true motivation for repeal of DADT is the hope that it will produce a lawsuit that will impose gay marriage on the whole nation in one fell swoop.”
There’s no need to worry – you won’t be forced to have a gay marriage. But of course, that not your problem, is it?
No, you’re a compulsive busybody who feels entitled to meddle in the lives of everyone else. It’s all about YOU, isn’t it? YOU want the government to limit MY life-opportunities in order to maximize YOUR satisfaction, comfort, and contentment with how I’M living MY life.
It seems reasonable to assume that the main reason you comment on this blog is to make sure the filthy homos don’t get too uppity, and remember their place. And I’ve noticed that you have plenty of company in that endeavor here at Gay Patriot.
JohnAGJ, I never invited you to a debate on DADT repeal, and it’s interesting that you think debate on this issue should cease now that gays have won. I’m sure you’d feel just the opposite if the vote on repeal had gone the other way. It’s just another example of gays creating rules that they have no intention of following themselves. When gays lose they don’t accept it and move on as they demand their opponents do. No, when gays lose they keep fighting until they win and then declare any further debate “pointless”. That’s another Leftist tactic I thought gay conservatives would refrain from and oppose, and that was another expectation of gay “conservatives” I had that proved too high.
“No, you’re a compulsive busybody who feels entitled to meddle in the lives of everyone else. It’s all about YOU, isn’t it? YOU want the government to limit MY life-opportunities in order to maximize YOUR satisfaction, comfort, and contentment with how I’M living MY life.”
Richard R, sounds like you’ve been taking talking points from Lori La La. So, I have to be a “compulsive busybody” to oppose gay marriage? Richard, there are many restrictions on who can marry whom in this country. There are restrictions on the number of people you can marry, the age of people you can marry, and the blood closeness of people you can marry. I don’t doubt that you support all such restrictions, so doesn’t that make you a “compulsive busybody”? Doesn’t that make you guilty of using “government to limit [the] life-opportunities” of others? And if not, why not? Why can gays like you pass judgment on other people’s unconventional domestic lifestyles without being bigoted, intolerant, busybodies, but straight social conservatives like me, can’t?
Why can gays like you pass judgment on other people’s unconventional domestic lifestyles without being bigoted, intolerant, busybodies, but straight social conservatives like me, can’t?
Seane-Anna, since I am a gay like Richard R, I’ll respond. You can pass judgment on me, calling me an intolerant busybody, because I do not support adults and children marrying. But yet, I support same sex marriage, interracial marriage, marriage where men and women are considered equals (unlike traditional marriage). I probably wouldn’t use bigoted, but you have never came up with a good reason why the state should not recognize same sex marriage. Your reason simply comes from your religious beliefs. Catholics, for example, believe that birth control is a no-no, but most mainstream Catholics aren’t busybodies and insist that birth control should be illegal.
Many conservatives, and not just gay conservatives, believe that government should stay out of certain things. So when you rail against Dan for not being a true conservative, I’m assuming that you don’t believe that Barry Goldwater was either. Fine, that’s you’re right. But I finding more and more that the only way one who can be gay and a conservative, in your opinion, are those who don’t believe they are worthy enough as a gay person, and denigrates gay persons.
You have made it clear that you oppose anything that puts gay persons in a positive light. And you oppose gay persons that have self-respect. Fine, you are entitled to that. We are all entitled to our opinions. You are also entitled to your definition of what it means to be conservative. And you are free to continue to fight your losing battle. That’s pretty much all you have to offer here.
Seane-Anna,
Are you really equating the ban on same-sex marriage with “restrictions on the number of people you can marry, the age of people you can marry, and the blood closeness of people you can marry?” Seriously? If you can’t see the difference, your powers of discernment are woefully deficient.
And, no, I don’t necessarily support those other restrictions, except for age.
But there’s no point in wasting more time on you, because I’m feeling smug today. So I’ll point out that the anti-gay culture war is nearly over, and the final outcome is secure: We will win, and you will lose. And you are destined to become an irrelevant deadender.