Powered by TypePad

« James O'Keefe And The Eerily Prescient Patterico | Main | Alito On Obama - "Not True". And He's Right! »

January 28, 2010

Comments

Dave (in MA)

I think this was throwing a bone to the his fellow lefties who are hoping for him to reverse the position on same sex marriage that he took during his campaign.

Danube of Thought

You can't just consider what happens in a war zone; the huge majority of service members are not in a war zone at any given time.

I do know to a virtual certainty that allowing women aboard warships has created some really difficult problems that take up loads of annoying time. I can well imagine that gays might have a comparable effect. I say this even though I think young people today are very accepting of gays. They're accepting of women, too, but that doesn't keep the serious problems from arising.

As for recruiting, it isn't very sound to consider only how it might or might not be affected in a down economy. If 'twere done, then 'tis done for good times and bad.

matt

this is a leftist meme that appeals to the red meat partisans. The McCain women are making the same mistake.

We are seeing a reaction to the excesses of Episcopalian "moderation" and the president decided to throw a bone to a constituency who have felt ever more disaffected.

One of the very few "positives" of the administration has been a turn towards inherited values. When you have Tea Partiers as the most active political force in the country, foolish inclusivism may not be the answer. Perez Hilton as a social moderate just won't sell in most of the country.

RichatUF

A failed healthcare takeover, now gays in the military, can Monica and a government shutdown be all that far behind?

bgates

Perez Hilton as a social moderate

Wait a minute (to coin a phrase). Why should Perez Hilton be taken as the embodiment of homosexuality any more than Barack Obama is taken as the embodiment of heterosexuality?

I would think the effects of gays would be similar to the effects of women, but less so, since pregnancy wouldn't be an issue.

Based on what's apparently happened with gay marriage, it doesn't seem like many gays would take the opportunity to enlist if it were presented to them.

Carol Herman

Name a war in history that didn't have whores as camp followers?

One of the things I noticed out of Vietnam, where we were drafting men under 25. And, particularly at 18. Is that they came back with brides. Perhaps you didn't notice? But men went there, and came back with brides. To say nothing of their exposure to brothels.

WW1 brought "Gay Parie" to American attention. Who went there? Farm boys. When they came home they came home with postcards. And, stories.

I just don't know what's happening in the Mideast. Obviously, the local women don't mingle. Gays in the military is NOT an answer! So, I'll guess the military provides "shore leave." Or some such rotation. So men can have access to women.

WW2, in From Here To Eternity, brought the subject home in a book. The Mideast now? Not so much.

But like the Saturday Nite Skit had, Obama's accomplished "NADA." Zero. Nothing. Political speeches are made, however, to shore up one's base. Policy changes, however? I don't think so.

Dave B

I'm pretty much a conservative guy with conservative principles, am a heterosexual, but I have a big problem with this. Maybe because I'm in law enforcement but I could give a rat's ass if one of my colleagues is gay or what he or she does in the privacy of his or her own bedroom. It's about time we put this behind us and moved on. I don't reflect on whether my backup is gay or not, I only care that we both get out of the situation alive and healthy and we protect each other. The same applies to soldiers. Are we naive enough to think that there have been no gay people in our military from its inception? Come on! There's something about this that feels like bigotry and wrong when I hear people that are offended by gays in the military. If they're good soldiers, they're good soldiers. Period. I, for one, would like this whole thing put to rest once and for all so we can address more important issues.

Ralph L

I would think the effects of gays would be similar to the effects of women
Hardly an advertisement for dropping DADT. Also, women still aren't in many units: ground combat, submarines. Teh gays are everywhere!

I think everyone is better off if discretion is enforced officially rather than otherwise.
And we don't need Marines making public tableau vivants of the Iwo Jima Memorial.

Linda M.

If you repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," does that mean that you go back to the way it was before?

If so, that means investigating suspected homosexuality, proving it, and drumming those folks out of the military.

Ralph L

Linda, without DADT, the President could change the regs himself.
WW2, in From Here To Eternity, brought the subject home in a book
And Montgomery Clift brought Burt Lancaster home in the movie, not that whore Donna Reed.

Neo

The problem with dropping "Don't Ask .." is that it opens up a whole set of problems that don't have to be addressed with "Don't Ask .."

For instance, this basically sez that gay can be more open .. well, how much more open ?
Some of our Islamic friends (assuming there are any) might not appreciate openly gay Americans, with or without stripes.

"Don't Ask" set this level as not at all. Let's see if Obama et al can define levels of being "openly gay".

Pofarmer

The problem isn't gays in the military, so much, the problem is the flaming gay activists you are unquestionably going to get, which dovetails in with Neo's post. Yeah, like we need more recipe's for disaster.

narciso

Ot, how did you think Sarah's debut as a pundit was,

bunky

There have always been gays in the military as any vet knows. I don't think dropping DADT will change anything. Maybe some rumblings during the first 6 months, after that the greatest machine for freedom rolls on.

sbw

When a question generates no easy understanding it's time to rephrase the issue and the questions.

In this case, I think the first cut at it ought to address the place of homosexuality in the culture, before considering the place of homosexuality in the military.

I thought a friend quite wise who gave this response when asked about activity with others of the same sex: "It will wash off."

boris

"macho men decide (absurdly) that the military is now a haven for girly-men"

Wait Just One Minute ... isn't the whole "macho man" = teh gay practically a cliche?

So ... based on points already raised ... who was commander of Abu Ghraib during the recruit more terrorist festivities? What significant factor was conspicuously left out of the Fort Hood murder spree?

The typical question is "What's the matter with those people ... don't they have any common sense ???".

Wrong question. There are always lots and lots of people with zero common sense.

Right question: "Whatever happened the sensible people who should have put a stop to it?"

Janet

There have always been gays in the military as any vet knows.
...and in every country. The line being crossed though is tolerance vs. acceptance/promotion of a lifestyle. There is an agenda at work here, and repealing DADT is just a stepping stone to mainstream and promote the homosexual lifestyle. As with so many other agendas, it will not end with just repealing DADT.
View this action along with hate crime legislation...Kevin Jennings GLSEN promotion in our schools...
IMO it will be straight soldiers that are put in the dock for not being accepting enough.

Eric Blair

Well, the military basically integrated during a war, (the Korean war that is--never mind that the desegregation order was signed in 1948).

So "during wartime" isn't really an objection.

I do not think the flaming gay activists will enlist.

BumperStickerist

Some random thoughts on "Gays in the Military" and DADT ... btw, served in the USAF, DD214, VA home loan, all that ...

... teh ghey sex is one thing, and actually a minor thing, if anything at all in the discussion. Premarital heterosexual activity in the military and premarital homosexual activity in the military could be a wash, so to speak.

The more important issue is whether the repeal of DADT would lead to a recognition by the military of gay marriage. This recognition would require a complete rethink of "Spouses Not Serving in the same unit in Combat" policy.

The possibility of gay marriage and the military could cause a *lot* of issues with regard to deployment and combat readiness.


DADT - it's not just about the genitals.

boris

"the military basically integrated during a war"

IMO it was a good thing that racial integration of the military came before political correctness theology made destructive stupidity a holy sacrament.

narciso

It's starting to feel like Balaclava, how valleys does he want to send the Democrats
'not to do or die' on. In a world where we didn't have multiple campaign in the war on terror, where the economy was humming, then
maybe we could give this consideration

sam

I am sure Congress is eager to take up this issue.

Do the Dems want to lose 200 seats instead of the 100 currently vulnerable?

Neo

We had that "Onion" piece (LUN) that claimed we were protecting our most precious citizens from military service (and possible death) by excluding gays from the military.

Jane

The line being crossed though is tolerance vs. acceptance/promotion of a lifestyle. There is an agenda at work here, and repealing DADT is just a stepping stone to mainstream and promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Actually if done it right it shouldn't promote anything. Ever notice that when things get mainstreamed you don't notice them any more? Once you see someone for something other than being gay, that doesn't even enter your mind. Dave B has it right.

Now there are two problems with that - the first are the gays who want to make it an issue - who IMO are their own worst enemy. If before Dave's gay back-up draws his gun he has to remind Dave that he is "special". That goes away with time.

The gays I know that are in their 60's had to be clowns not to get killed but that is no longer the case. And then there are gays like Amy whose sexuality rarely occurs to her, I suspect. She never leads with it, nor would she deny it. It just is.

She doesn't want to promote the homosexual lifestyle, she just wants to be left alone.

That's the point we want to get to I think.

Ann

Why should we care if there are gays in the military. other countries have no problem with it, why must we?

Pofarmer



Why should we care if there are gays in the military. other countries have no problem with it, why must we?

Other countries hang gays. I don't think that's a very good metric.

sbw

Those who would hang gays never read John Stuart Mill.

boris

"when things get mainstreamed you don't notice them any more?"

That was sort of my point on the Fort hood issue. "What significant factor was conspicuously left out of the [official report on the] Fort Hood murder spree?"

Any supposedly transitional problems will mysteriously disappear from public view.

Sue

I am trying to understand why it would be a problem to be openly gay in the military. One problem I foresee is discipline. If a soldier (sailor, etc., I am not going to repeat it each time) is not performing and his commander pushes him (or her, yada yada) or disciplines him will being gay be used as a defense? We have already seen how the military deals with "special" soldiers. Hasan was promoted even though he was useless to the military, simply because he was a Muslim. They are going to have to figure out how to serve openly and still be treated like everyone around them.

Sue

As to flaming gays serving, oh yeah, they will certainly do it. They are the ones that will be looking to make what I was talking about above THE issue.

sbw

Yes, affectation has nothing to do with sexuality.

Would it be out of place to stop attacking gayness and turn instead on affectations? I mean, really, and extend the ban as far as Tammy Fae Bakker's make-up.

Jane

I agree with both of you. Let me ask Amy her solution:

Amy says - if you are out from the beginning - it's pretty hard to accuse someone of discrimination. Her example: When I hired her I knew she was gay so if I fired her 5 years later she could hardly claim it was her gayness.

But we agree that while that is a good theory it doesn't always work because you get different bosses in the military. What's to stop someone from saying - the military let me in but this guy still hates gays.

Her final thought was: "It's like: how do you get a black person out of your apartment."

I always thought it was all that liberal political correctness that promotes discrimination and this is just another example.

jimmyk

am trying to understand why it would be a problem to be openly gay in the military.

I would go back to DoT's point about the difficulties arising from coed units. Some of those relate to pregnancies, which wouldn't arise from from having gays, but it's pretty easy to foresee other complications that distract from the sole purpose of the armed forces--anything ranging from romantic entanglements that go awry to effects on the cohesiveness of the unit. I'd prefer to leave judgment of how important those are to people with real understanding of the military, as opposed to our CIC who appears to have zero understanding of anything.

clarice

I pedict Congress will repeal DADT just after it okays the transfer of KSM to the US for trial in a NY civil court.

Pofarmer

Her final thought was: "It's like: how do you get a black person out of your apartment."

That made me laugh out loud.

Pofarmer

as opposed to our CIC who appears to have zero understanding of anything.

That deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean teleprompter.

Ann

Ann at 9:16am is not me. Watch out for impostors today.

narciso

Cleo is still not good enough to really pull off a sockpuppetting, except with the most
innocuous statements.

Now in my neck of the woods, there is a police applicant who is suing for being discriminated against, but he had a part in
a porn film, talk about not getting the point

Ignatz

--I would think the effects of gays would be similar to the effects of women, but less so, since pregnancy wouldn't be an issue.--

I'm kind of thinking there might be more instances of unwanted sexual advances, and the unfortunate fallout of them, with the former than the latter. Dropping a bunch of openly gay men into a large group of young single heterosexuals would I think have very different and many unforseen repurcussions compared to the already disruptive mess caused by dropping a bunch of women into them. I saw first hand what a mess that made of the Air Force with regard to on base discipline and readiness.

--Maybe because I'm in law enforcement but I could give a rat's ass if one of my colleagues is gay or what he or she does in the privacy of his or her own bedroom.--

Well, in law enforcement, unlike the military, his bedroom isn't your bedroom. Tents and barracks for months at a time are somewhat different from even the firehouse.

--Actually if done it right it shouldn't promote anything.--

The military is still part of the government and the government seldoms does anything right.
There have been far more systemic problems, as opposed to individual ones, associated with women in the military than is generally known. Our miitary is still great but the question is how much more effective could it be and does allowing openly gay soldiers advance its effectiveness. It's hard to see how, although its easy to see what it does advance and its real purpose.

Janet

I do not think the flaming gay activists will enlist.
Yes they will...if for no other reason than to bring litigation.

If homosexuality is to be accepted/promoted, what moral code are we as a nation going by? Why the headlines for Edwards, Tiger Woods, Sanford, Craig? Is sex anytime, anywhere, with whoever or whatever the person wants okay? Gay sex is okay, but extramarital sex is scandalous?

I think both are a sin. While there should be love and tolerance for every person, that is very different from accepting, promoting, and mainstreaming.

Danube of Thought

"Hardly an advertisement for dropping DADT."

I'm not advertising it. I'm just pointing out that it would create a number of problems that will have to be dealt with.

I'm in favor of gay marriage being made legal my legislation or by referendum (though not by courts finding rights in documents that don't contain such rights). I voted against Prop 8 in CA. I think that allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces is the right thing to do, in the abstract.

But it's not abstract. To the proposal to end DADT, my response is "toward what end?" If the answer is anything other than "to make our armed forces more efficient fighting organizations," I become skeptical. And if I do get that answer, I'd like an explanation as to why it would have that effect.

Danube of Thought

*by* legislation...

Cecil Turner

In a war zone the focus will be on the mission, and soldiers will be more concerned with whether a fellow soldier can save their sorry ass then with whether he is staring at it.

This argument puts the cart before the horse. Soldiers in a war zone become extremely close, and as a result are willing to make extreme sacrifices for their fellows. The knock on open gays is that their presence impedes the bonding process necessary for building esprit de corps.

I do not think the flaming gay activists will enlist.

They're already there. The current policy merely limits how much they can flame.

Jane

The knock on open gays is that their presence impedes the bonding process necessary for building esprit de corps.

I dunno about that. Amy is one of my closest friends. There has never been one second where her sexuality got in the middle of that.

My other closest friend is a married man. I don't have a problem with that either.

Maybe it's me.

Porchlight

But Jane, you don't live in cramped non-private quarters with those friends, spend every waking minute with them, train for missions with them, experience intense mental and physical duress with them, deploy for extremely long and often dangerous missions with them.

Which is not to say that couldn't all succeed wildly, too. It's just that being in the military isn't like being friends or colleagues with someone in civilian life. So the comparisons aren't that easy.

Cecil Turner

So the comparisons aren't that easy.

Bingo. Throw in the fact that we're typically concerned about performance of a couple hundred man unit in a combat zone (where small decrements in cohesiveness may lead to mission failure and significant loss of life), and the complexity--and the consequence of getting it wrong--increases dramatically.

boris

"the consequence of getting it wrong--increases"

And generally it can't be acknowledged or addressed if it happens. It's one of those bridges that spontaneously burst into flame after they're crossed.

Jane

But Jane, you don't live in cramped non-private quarters with those friends, spend every waking minute with them, train for missions with them, experience intense mental and physical duress with them, deploy for extremely long and often dangerous missions with them.

That's true. And my married man friend is absurdly good looking. Having never been in that situation I can't say for certainty that it wouldn't cause me to jump one or both of their bones. Particularly if I were in my 20's. Still I think that stuff is always a choice.

I do think implying lack of restraint is a bigger issue for a gay person than a straight person is a mistake tho. I'm not sure you are doing that but still I wanted to make the point.

Janet

Gays in the military is a small example of a larger question for our nation. What is our moral code, or standard as a people? Is there a standard? We have entered into the world of moral relativism, and there are no guidelines or boundaries in that universe.
I have gay friends. I have friends that live together. I don't hate them.
It seems to me though that it is about right and wrong. We embrace and promote sinful behavior at our own peril as a nation.

boris

"implying lack of restraint is a bigger issue for a gay person ..."

DADT places the burden of restraint on the gay soldier. Any gay-straight discipline problem is explicitly resolved by transfer or discharge of the gay person. From the military POV that would seem to be a much simpler policy than sorting out the blame under CYA political correctness.

Porchlight

"implying lack of restraint is a bigger issue for a gay person ..."

Jane,

No, I didn't mean to imply that, but thanks for clarifying. I think problems could arise in either direction. I would worry most about political correctness in resolving them, as boris mentioned, and as we've already unfortunately seen in the Ft. Hood situation (both before and after the shootings).

Also, and perhaps this has been more or less resolved in other countries where gays serve openly, but how are they housed? Do gay men live in barracks with straight men? Gay women with straight women? I can't but help think that would be logistically difficult if DADT is repealed. If it wasn't an issue, we'd have universal co-ed barracks already, correct?

Porchlight

Should clarify: I meant political correctness in resolving personnel issues generally, as seen in the situation with Hasan at Ft. Hood. Am *not* making direct comparisons between Hasan's behavior and problems associated with gays serving openly. In case that wasn't clear...

Ignatz

--I do think implying lack of restraint is a bigger issue for a gay person than a straight person is a mistake tho.--

When even Andy Sullivan has to advocate a sex-outside-of-marriage allowance for gay marriage due to the extreme lack of monogamy even among committed gay couples, I'm not sure I agree with the above.
It may be true of lesbians but highly doubtful for gay men I think.

--And my married man friend is absurdly good looking.--

I must be getting old, Jane. I don't even remember meeting you. Har, har.

Jack is Back!

If you think the Ft. Hood massacre was tainted with PC gone wild because of Nidal being a Muslim then you haven't seen anything yet when have an openly gay military. You get one of Pofarmer's "gay activists" (which under normal military deportment circumstances would be dealt with pronto and forceable) it will be velvet gloves and champagne, deary. Until the military, in which I honorable served for 14 years including my reserve duty, corrects its PC attitude that contributed to the Nidal error then you cannot and should not put more pressure on the system to conform for the wrong reason.

I flew missions as a member of an air crew with a gay in the mix. Everyone knew, no one cared. However, if the member did something that would compromise crew integrity and mission objectives I have no doubt he would be asked to take it somewhere else. It didn't happen and he was an equal member contributing to the overall performance. That was back in the 60's and early 70's.

Jane

I would worry most about political correctness in resolving them

That is my issue too. When I asked Amy her opinion I started with the Hassan issue. Her opinion is - if everyone knows that someone is gay and the gay person is allowed in, the cause of discrimination goes out the window. However because of political correctness that will not stop anyone from raising that issue - which is why she made the comment about getting the black man out of her apartment.

Essentially Hassan was the black man.

My point is that liberals have caused this entire mess - like most things. The fact that most gays are liberal is a shot in their own foot.

matt

DoT;

Perhaps you recall the first naval vessel on which there was a coed crew? One of my former employees many years ago served on that vessel.

He told me that after their first cruise, somewhere north of 30% of the female crew ended up pregnant. he also said the Navy did its best to cover the problem up. He was instructed not to speak about i and only did so years later.

When the General commanding a division in Iraq wanted to bring female soldiers up on charges for fraternization a few months ago, there was an uproar back home and he was forced to back down, despite the clearly deleterious effect on manpower and staffing caused.

Don't ask, don't tell is an imperfect solution to a serious problem. The President is pandering to a political constituency whom he has slighted deeply in the past year. That doesn't make the decision right. Testosterone in close quarters has to be strictly controlled at all times.

The whole duty, honor, country ethos has been weakened by political correctness.

Ignatz

--I flew missions as a member of an air crew with a gay in the mix.--

We had a lesbian couple in our unit in the reserves. They were much less trouble than the straight women precisely because they knew they were not a protected minority, a status the straight women were already obtaining. The lesbians had to do their job because they knew they could get canned for the lesbian thing. Some of the straight gals tried to do their jobs but were constantly given a break when they were too weak or slow at certain tasks. And a few took full advantage of their status to not do much of anything competently. And the sexual tensions and favoritism were constant in both the regular and reserves.
To see what it's like with gays as a protected class in government service one need only look to my unfortunte friend who is the principle of a school in a juvenile detention facility. He has an openly lesbian staffer who works for him and is constantly making his life miserable simply because she knows he doesn't dare try and can her. She has alienated the entire staff but is politically untouchable.

Here's a link to the Center for Military Readiness, which has done an immense amount of work on these issues over the years.

cathyf
DADT places the burden of restraint on the gay soldier.
Actually there should be a burden on both sides. The "Don't Ask" part should mean that sexual harassment of someone that you think is gay (but don't know because he/she is not telling) is grounds for discipline.
Jane

I must be getting old, Jane. I don't even remember meeting you. Har, har.

Hmmmm - well if you had met me you certainly would have remembered! Harummph!

So I think we have solved the problem. Only conservative gays should be allowed in the military.

Sue

I can't say for certainty that it wouldn't cause me to jump one or both of their bones. Particularly if I were in my 20's.

Well that just made me LOL.

Richard Aubrey

You'll recall the pc-fright that allowed Maj Hasan his march through the institution to Ft. Hood.
It worked because Muslims are a protected class.
In the past, blacks could get away with things in the military for the same reason. (Saw a black E6 who was refused promotion threaten a colonel with accusing him of prejudice because the sarge had a white wife.)
Gays will be the new protected class and that will be prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Ralph L

One possible compromise would be to allow open gays only in the mixed-sex units. REMF would be renamed REBF.

Ignatz


--So I think we have solved the problem. Only conservative gays should be allowed in the military.--

In which case our military will presumably be about the size of Monaco's, with six whole rifles, two drums and lots of sassy accessorizing:

h

Ignatz

--Hmmmm - well if you had met me you certainly would have remembered! Harummph!--

Premature senility doesn't make an exception for beauty and brains. ;)

Blue


Hmmm...

Will there be a Gay Pride dance at the O'Club?

Will officers and enlisted gays be allowed to 'march' in the same Gay Pride parade?

Will career gays have to spend all their days in dorm rooms or will they demand access to family housing?

With regard to the above, will the military be compelled to recognize gay marriage or allow 'partners' to live in family housing?

Will the military enforce fraternization regulations?

Will openly gay members be able to serve in countries that crimilize homosexulality?

Will ALL military members be required to attend gay sensitivity training?

Etc., etc., etc...

I served 20+ in war and peace with some of the greatest people in the world, including homosexuals. No problem when it's a private thing. IMO, the minute it becomes an open thing, it becomes an issue/agenda thing. That's not a good thing.

I'm not convinced all gays in the military (or otherwise) want to be openly gay. Will their right to privacy be compromised by new policies?

Danube of Thought

"He told me that after their first cruise, somewhere north of 30% of the female crew ended up pregnant."

Some time later Adm. Tom Moorer--fabulous guy--said privately, "hell, in my day it woulda been a hunnert percent!"

sbw

Janet: Is sex anytime, anywhere, with whoever or whatever the person wants okay?

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't win my vote. I recommend reading about J. S. Mill's writings On Liberty. He addressed the difference between public shows of affection that some might find offensive and private situations that he believed are none of the government's business. Whether or not you think anything is a sin is important to you and you alone.

Angela Light

This meme is so stupid as to be beyond even the worst snickers. If 5the need is so great shall we permit criminals to enlist; how about foreigners; how about the underage; the overweight; the morally unfit; gangbangers?

So why not allow the NAMBLA brigade in? After all if you allow the above categories in how could you possibly object? But you don't do you?

If the need is so great reinstate the draft and then lets start with the author.

Porchlight

Whether or not you think anything is a sin is important to you and you alone.

Does Mill believe that all behaviors are equally virtuous? If not, what do we do about it?

As far as the military goes, conduct of all sorts is regulated for a reason. The conventional distinction between public and private behavior does not have the meaning it does in civilian life.

Janet

I'm not sure what is absurd. Do you mean...surely people won't go THAT far!?
I read some of the materials put out by GLSEN for 7-12 grade children.
I have read some teen novels.
I have seen the zombietime coverage of gay street fairs in San Francisco.
Isn't there a show now about polygamy?

I was just asking what our moral boundaries are. Tolerance of an individual is one thing, but the accepting, mainstreaming, and promoting of certain lifestyles will be huge for the military and our whole society.

Maybe because I have 2 teen children I am sensitive to the filth that is peddled to our young. The normalizing of behaviors that are anything but.
Don't worry though.....if television is any indicator, people with my beliefs are losing this battle.

sbw

Porch, the word in my sights was "sin" separate from behavior. Sin, a religious offense that varies from religion to religion is not the proper domain of civil law.

Specific behavior, according to Mill, can and should be outlawed where that behavior can hurt others. Protecting children certainly falls into a class that deserves to be protected.

sbw

Janet, regarding your teen children, a civil law should protect children from being cheated out of their childhood innocence.

Janet

LUN is a Jan.2009 article at Ace of Spades about gays in the military. Some good points.

"Don't ask, don't tell makes military service less attractive to gays and progressive liberals. But they, largely, are not inclined to serve in any event. Repealing the code makes service less attractive to traditionalists and, yes, conservatives (as well as blacks and Hispanics) who tend to be liberal on many issues but not particularly progressive about homosexuality) who actually are inclined to serve."

Ignatz

--Sin, a religious offense that varies from religion to religion is not the proper domain of civil law.--

Like the Ten Commandments which the Supreme Court recognizes as the basis of our civil laws by depicting Moses holding them on its frieze and representations of them on its doors?

cathyf
Janet, regarding your teen children, a civil law should protect children from being cheated out of their childhood innocence.
Like not having viagra and cialis commercials on shows that are popular with kids?
sbw

Yeah, I am offended by showing two bath tubs with people holding hands between them.

Ignatz, I don't mind history being used as a reason to consider laws civil authority should pass, I mind one person's religion being used to justify which ones. Civil law needs to stand independent of religion because one person cannot successfully faith non-believers into following them. Laws should depend on understanding rather than coercion as the prime justification to follow them.

pagar

Those who forsee the problems of openingly gay people serving in the military, requesting base housing for the married couples etc, might look at this Hawaii Article.
If the Dems can't get it done in Hawaii??????

Larry

Retired military here. We house men and women separately in the military. Why is this done? How do proponents of this change suggest we house the openly gay personnel? Should gay men bunk with straight men? Should we have completely gay units by design? If not, should management “track” the number of openly gay personnel in a unit to prevent the majority from being openly gay? Should gay men bunk with gay women? When you answer these questions to yourself, then ask if you would recommend you son or daughter to join the military.

Cecil Turner

Should gay men bunk with gay women?

If so, sign me up as gay!

(I knew that was a trick question.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame