Patterico's Pontifications

12/18/2010

Two Big Lame Duck Votes: DREAM Act Blocked; Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Soon to Be History

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:54 am



A couple of key votes this morning. First, the blocking of the DREAM Act:

Senate Republicans have blocked a bill to grant hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.

And next, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell vote:

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to advance legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Both links via Hot Air Headlines.

[Update: By Aaron Worthing.]

Don’t ask, don’t tell is repealed. That is, the Senate passed the house law and all that is left is for the President to sign it, which is a virtual certainty.  So go ahead, ask, and tell.  But don’t investigate.

[This update was by Aaron Worthing.]

206 Responses to “Two Big Lame Duck Votes: DREAM Act Blocked; Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Soon to Be History”

  1. I question the links to a site other than Hot Air!

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  2. Say what you will about the risk of removing incumbent GOP Senators in a primary, but Bennett going down was 100% the correct thing to do.

    Thank you, Utah GOP voters!

    Ed from SFV (6edf50)

  3. I question the links to a site other than Hot Air!

    It’s a legitimate complaint. But at least the links were OBTAINED at Hot Air.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  4. I would have no problem with a DREAM Act that required military service, but 2 years at a JC is a bit insulting. Some dues have to be paid.

    Kevin M (298030)

  5. McCain’s flag is flying at half-staff — so to speak.

    Icy Texan (7f42e2)

  6. Kevin, it’s particularly insulting to veterans to have their sacrifice equated with the benefit of getting to go to school.

    I agree, a DREAM act for military service is a good idea, on its own. 2 years is too short, IMO.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  7. I agree, a DREAM act for military service is a good idea, on its own. 2 years is too short, IMO.

    Comment by Dustin — 12/18/2010 @ 10:45 am

    I don’t agree with using mil service as a means of getting citizenship. Service is currently voluntary. If we don’t have enough volunteers to fill the open positions with current citizens we have hit a sad point. When we start outsourcing our military people so citizens don’t have to be troubled with the question of whether they should serve or not, it is time to pack it in.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  8. “voted to advance legislation that would overturn the military ban…”

    Uh, it is a legislated ban, not developed ny the US military – and in one sentence both that actuality and the myth are given equal credibility. Even at that, it was a sop/compromise with those who wanted an outright all-encompassing ban, such as “Reverand” Phelps. And one of my less-fond memories was the snickering and comments of a “straight” lieutenant during a “short-arm” inspection…

    As to military service to gain citizenship, I was under the impression that avenue was already an option, at the very least a way of keeping ICE at bay while processing through the courts. OK, off-hand I can only remember one case making the newspapers, a Danish man, but surely it is not actually necessary to pass a law – merely to publicise an extant possibility?

    John A (20fb2b)

  9. This the same CBO that initially said Obamacare would save money?

    Uh-huh.

    kaz (e7a67c)

  10. They have no idea how many illegal aliens are in the country, yet they know by passage of the DREAM Act it will cut the deficit. You must actually think that Obamacare will reduce the cost of Health Care.

    wiltard (e7577d)

  11. Everyone should have a dream… not everyone should have amnesty.

    Lord Nazh (11400d)

  12. Since we have changed the terms under which they enlisted, I think that all service members should be given the opportunity of accepting an honorable discharge effective on the day that DADT ends.

    Shouldn’t be a problem since there are so many openly gay folks desiring to serve their country.

    Hank Archer (17792e)

  13. I don’t agree with using mil service as a means of getting citizenship. Service is currently voluntary. If we don’t have enough volunteers to fill the open positions with current citizens we have hit a sad point. When we start outsourcing our military people so citizens don’t have to be troubled with the question of whether they should serve or not, it is time to pack it in.

    Comment by vor

    It’s not about filling the shortfall in volunteers.

    I’ve served with a number of men who were not US citizens yet, and this is the exact opposite of outsourcing. This is people who love the idea of being Americans enough to defend America.

    I have no disrespect of draftees, though I absolutely agree that a volunteer Army is much superior. I do not think people who agree to serve for 4 years, honorably, in hopes of becoming citizens, are like draftees who didn’t want to serve.

    It’s more like someone who agrees to serve partly to earn a good living and gain college benefits.

    And I’ll never pack it in. If we were to run out of volunteers, due to the needs of a war, I’d rather have a draft than give up on my country. But that’s just me.

    Millions of people are enlisted in some capacity, so I don’t think we have to worry. Like Sarah Palin said, I have no hesitation being proud of my country, even when she does something silly like elect Obama, simply because I’ve met so many amazing volunteer soldiers. And 2 of the best I ever met were not yet citizens.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  14. John A. The current policy only applies to legal immigrants. It enables them to get their citizenship sooner than non-military service legal immigrants. I would support a program that allowed those brought here as minor children to be considered as still living in their native country and meeting that country’s eligibility rules for immigration to the United States.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  15. And at least my drill instructor was quite good at refocusing those of us who joined for the GI Bill to joining to defend America.

    Each of us had to write a notecard and pin it to our lockers explaining why we were volunteering. Those who did it for something other than their country’s protection quickly learned. Not just to say what they are supposed to, but to mean it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. Over at Instapundit, he links to a NYT article that deceptively describes DADT as “…the Pentagon policy created in 1993 under the Clinton administration as a compromise effort to end the practice of banning gay men and lesbians entirely from military service...”.
    Nothing about the Congress that was controlled by Democrats on both sides of the Hill, that created this Law, and imposed it upon an Executive who had announced a “Gays in the Military” policy.
    It was all the fault of those evil military guys, who compelled the government to their will.

    AD-RtR/OS! (844268)

  17. After DADT passes, is Obama going to abdicate the signing ceremony to Bill Clinton so he can repeal his own law?

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  18. If they spend a couple of years in the liberal arts department of most American colleges they too will come to hate America and want to go home.

    Or not.

    Huey (ddf1a4)

  19. I think that all service members should be given the opportunity of accepting an honorable discharge effective on the day that DADT ends.

    Exactly. Very classy idea. This is just like they did when they integrated the negroes.

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  20. Comment by happyfeet — 12/18/2010 @ 12:03 pm

    I sincerely hope that your statement was laced with sarcasm?

    AD-RtR/OS! (844268)

  21. oh your resume says you were in the military for… four months?

    Yeah I gotted honorable dischargered cause of I didn’t want to serve with no fags.

    Well you’ll certainly be a good fit here in the private sector. We’ve been looking for people like you! Guess what? You got the job!

    Thank you when do I start?

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  22. It is not at all similar, happyfet.

    JD (07faa1)

  23. the principle is that soldiers should get to pick and choose who they serve with

    It’s the American way!

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  24. Why is it that people feel compelled to equate sexual preference with race?

    JD (07faa1)

  25. “DADT” is so misrepresented by the press I doubt most people know what the actual statute is. The UCMJ bars homosexuals from serving, period. It has ever since it replaced the Articles of War in the immediate post-WWII period. “DADT” was simply the nickname applied to the policies resulting from Clinton’s EO directing non-enforcement of the statute.

    The whole argument for repealing “DADT” is completely absent facts. It’s simply a misguided emotional appeal. Unlike race or gender, there is no argument that repeal will improve the militarys capabilities. Integrating women more broadly into the military imposes a large burden on the leadership. I know when I was in I spent a great deal of my time dealing with issues that I shouldn’t have had to bother with, and never did when the combat exclusion law barred women from ships. Or just ask Major General Anthony Cucolo, who caught a lot of flack and eventually had to rescind his order to investigate for possible Court Martial all cases of pregnancy in Iraq. Because frankly the fact that women get pregnant and either don’t deploy or leave deployment early places a huge burden on commands.

    But at least one can make the case that integrating women into combat forces provides unique capabilities to the services. Such as the ability to search women or areas of homes in Iraq and Afghanistan that male soldiers and marines can’t without antagonizing the locals.

    There is no such argument to be made for opening the service to gays. The idea that we’re losing all sorts of highly trained personnel is bogus. The services have lost a few trainees, such as those at DLI widely misrepresented as translators, but not very many experienced personnel.

    So now the military will have to deal with all the same negatives, injecting sexual tensions into combat forces, that women brought with none of the positives to offset it.

    Speaking of bogus arguments, does anyone really believe Gates’ claptrap about doing things at their own pace rather than at a court order?

    I can still see all sorts of bias rationales for gay activist groups to sue the DoD. Now the argument will simply shift from the claim the military is violating the right of gays to serve to the military isn’t doing enough to safeguard the right of gays to be free from discrimination in the service.

    Steve (150bd6)

  26. bigotry is bigotry and I really can’t think of any particular bigotry the military will still be able to be honestly accused of once it gets rid of the asking telling nonsense

    that’s a good thing the military will have a lot more moral authority and a lot of the left which had been unsupportive of the military will be deprived of a glaring example of injustice to point to

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  27. feet, the left will always be able to find a justification for hating the military.

    as a proud member of their ranks, you should know that.

    redc1c4, resident 11 Bravo (fb8750)

  28. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if all the peoples what got kicked out are given honorables, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t be.

    That’s probably part of the law change you would think.

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  29. Mr. red I am a staunch conservative and I think individuals should be judged on merit. People like Mr. Jeremy. He was a cook but he got kicked out the navy cause of they found he was gay even though everybody he served with thought he was a great cook type person and his captain asked that he be retained. No fairs you think to yourself. That doesn’t sound right.

    And yet that’s the way it is until after they do the repeal of DADT what Meghan’s coward daddy is so opposed to.

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  30. DADT was silly. Patently so. But these congresscritters are even more so. Clinton should ohave to sign the repeal.

    JD (07faa1)

  31. Vor2 wrote:

    I don’t agree with using mil service as a means of getting citizenship. Service is currently voluntary. If we don’t have enough volunteers to fill the open positions with current citizens we have hit a sad point. When we start outsourcing our military people so citizens don’t have to be troubled with the question of whether they should serve or not, it is time to pack it in.

    When my older daughter was graduated from Basic Combat Training, the presiding officer noted that one of the graduating soldiers had then finished basic training for the third time: the first with the Iraqi Republican Guard, the second with the Iraqi Army after the Ba’ath Party regime was overthrown, and the third time with the United States Army.

    You do not have to be a citizen to join the military now, though you do (normally) have to have lived in the United States for five years, and your options for MOS may be restricted to those fields not requiring a security clearance.

    The Army daddy Dana (bd7e62)

  32. “bigotry is bigotry”

    feets…

    so says the sexist little rhymey guy

    Lord Nazh (11400d)

  33. ______________________________________

    Yeah I gotted honorable dischargered cause of I didn’t want to serve with no fags.

    Not trying to put you on the spot, and if this question is too personal or bothers you, just ignore it. But are you homosexual or bisexual, happyfeet? Or is someone in your family, or a friend, that way? Regardless, you sure do have leftist (or is that libertarian?) sentiments when it comes to the topic of “GLBT.”

    Of course, people who are socially and politically accommodating of gays certainly don’t have to be liberal or homo- or bisexual themselves. But I just wonder when people’s biases over this matter are affected if not by their politics than by their own sexuality or that of the people close to them.

    I know my opinion of “GLBT” has changed as I’ve become aware of how much bisexuality appears to be a part of the nature of even out-and-out gays—referring to males in particular, since they, for obvious reasons, can’t fake it. IOW, I realize that when it comes to this controversy — among others — the conservative socio-political angle actually is more spot-on about the reality of the world than even I thought was the case several years ago.

    BTW, why are there two different words to describe male homosexuals (“gay”) and female homosexuals (“lesbians”)? The lingo alone makes such people seem like an odd or peculiar sub-species of humans.

    Mark (411533)

  34. happyfeet, how many times have you written that Lindsy Graham was gay, or that something you thought as stupid was gay?
    Now, imagine a soldier jokingly(or not)doing the same in the presence of a homosexual who takes offense. Should he/she be punished? I can’t imagine that’ll help unit cohesion.
    Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I was reprimanded at work, even though I wasn’t at work and didn’t direct my joking remark at the gay guy who reported me(he overheard me talking to another coworker at a Friday get together in a parking lot of the eatery we were at).

    wiltard (e7577d)

  35. being for repeal of DADT is very very easily defended on conservative grounds where individuals are allowed to succeed or fail on merit, particularly if they are for reals American citizens and not dream citizens

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  36. I’ve made this argument before, but the case of PFC Bradley Manning simply underscores it: DA/DT is a horrible policy from a security standpoint.

    When I was strapped to the lie detector for my security interview — decades ago — they asked me if I had ever cheated on my wife. The reason was crystal clear: if I had, and she didn’t already know about it, then I had a point of vulnerability to blackmail. They asked me if I had ever had a homosexual experience, for the same reason.

    With DA/DT, we couldn’t ask those questions, but a homosexual serving in the military was automatically blackmailable, because revelation of his homosexuality would cost him his career; he didn’t even have the option of going to his security officer and revealing the blackmail (the way someone who cheated on his wife would), because he’d automatically be gone.

    We have two, and only two, rational options: either ban homosexuals from serving, period, and asking and investigating, or allow open service. And we might as well admit it: the first option is not one which is open to us anymore, meaning that open service is the only one left.

    The realistic Dana (bd7e62)

  37. Liberals equate sexual preference with race because it’s all about labels and classification with them.

    Icy Texan (7f42e2)

  38. BTW, most DADT dismissals are done IIRC under an Administrative Discharge, which carries no criminal sanction (only a Dishonorable Discharge does).
    In fact, most discharges processed during Basic Training are handled this way unless they are for strictly medical reasons, which would generate a Medical Discharge.
    To receive an HD, one must generally complete the Term of Service one signed-on for.

    AD-RtR/OS! (844268)

  39. Mr. wiltard you have a good point I’m a hypocrite the english language needs many many more words what are disdainful and I work very hard to employ as many as I can when talking about our failsh*t political class just some are more memorable than others like hoochie and poofter

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  40. Poofter is a good one.

    JD (07faa1)

  41. Steve is exactly right in sourcing the policy to the UCMJ. The admission of homosexuality in the military or the enlistment process is the admission of a crime just as if confessing to being a drug addict or a bank robber which automatically makes that person ineligible to serve. It is also instructive that the example brought out the most of the Europeans or the Israelis for integrating gays into the military but then in practice the gays are usually resegregated to either rear echelon positions or never even attached to combat units in any capacity.

    Pat Patterson (56dc55)

  42. With DA/DT, we couldn’t ask those questions, but a homosexual serving in the military was automatically blackmailable

    Hard to believe that in today’s era, the concept of being blackmailed is anything but an old-timey and quaint relic of the past.

    Western civilization is becoming the ultimate stooge, sucker and sitting duck.

    Time.com, January 2010:

    The U.S. military’s just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect’s view of his Muslim faith.

    John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan’s view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military’s activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report’s silence on Islamic extremism “shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,” he told TIME on Tuesday. “It’s definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens.”

    Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. “The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam,” says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. “Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for.”

    Mark (411533)

  43. Never say “gays” and “rear positions” in the same sentence.

    Icy Texan (7f42e2)

  44. Dang, I don’t know what happened to the rest of my comment. Anyway, to make a long story short, I was written up by the HR department without being told what I said, who I said it to, or where it occurred. Fortunately, the guy couldn’t keep his mouth shut(big surprise), and bragged to another coworker that he didn’t like me and did it just to get me in trouble. That coworker went to HR, told them, and they ripped up the reprimand.
    BTW, I never said “fag” or “queer”, my friend saw a rainbow flag bumpersticker on a car in the parking lot, and asked what it meant. Jokingly, I said the vehicle owner must belong to a butt dart league.
    Do you really think military has time for nonsense like this?

    wiltard (e7577d)

  45. This decade-long perfect record of stopping amnesty came despite the fact that the pro-amnesty side has held all the commanding heights of the economy and society: Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big Academia, Big Media, Big Philanthropy, and of course, Big Government. The open-borders side is backed by billionaires like George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, and Michael Bloomberg, plus scores of millions from mammoth foundations like Ford, Carnegie, and MacArthur, plus 98 percent of groups lobbying Congress on the issue.

    But we had the public.

    Excellent point as well as a great reminder to stay in the fight and not give up.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  46. ___________________________________________

    Do you really think military has time for nonsense like this?

    They as hell had better not. Not when they’re willing to tolerate crap like this—yes, unbelievable, absurd, irresponsible politically-correct thinking evident in, of all places, the US military:


    Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers

    Mark (411533)

  47. Mr. wiltard you have a good point I’m a hypocrite the english language needs many many more words what are disdainful and I work very hard to employ as many as I can when talking about our failsh*t political class just some are more memorable than others like hoochie and poofter

    Comment by happyfeet — 12/18/2010 @ 1:10 pm

    Listen, I know what you meant, and I’m not calling you a hypocrite. As a matter of fact, I laughed. My point is that someone with an axe to grind can use something like that to stir sh!t up. Now, in civilian life it’s can be a real pain if you don’t get along with someone you work with. In the military, it’s a whole different ballgame(no pun intended).

    wiltard (e7577d)

  48. #33 strikes me as a patronizing and offensive comment.

    JD (07faa1)

  49. where do you live wiltard the rainbow stickers are hard to find anymore in studio city this is the one you see here I saw it the other day on a big creepy gay van… I was trying to get to work and the big gay van pulled out in front of me on my street… and then he drives like 2 miles an hour and I watch the light and then bam the light’s at that sweet spot where if you make it then you miss the light to get on ventura but try telling that to two mile an hour big gay van guy and then he was turning right and I was turning left and I glared at him and he smiled

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  50. I am glad the appearance of our military facilities will soon be getting makeovers from the influx of openly gay service members, unlike when they let in all those Negroes to cook for the white soldiers.

    /sarc

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  51. #33 strikes me as a patronizing and offensive comment.

    It strikes me as a ridiculous question and misguided sentiment. Along the lines of “If you ever knew anyone with a health problem, you’d be in favor of a public option!”
    If you believe gays in the military should be able to put a picture of their partner in their office, you must be gay!

    Mark didn’t ask me, but I can tell him. I want gays to be able to marry and I want them to be able to be open and serve in the military. I am straight. My kids are straight. My siblings are straight.
    But if I wasn’t or they weren’t….I’d want us to be able to live our lives as freely as we do now.

    MayBee (081489)

  52. wiltard wrote:

    Now, imagine a soldier jokingly (or not) doing the same in the presence of a homosexual who takes offense. Should he/she be punished? I can’t imagine that’ll help unit cohesion.

    You already have the situation existing, just with different parameters. What do you think will happen if two white soldiers are telling a racist joke and a black soldier overhears them?

    Heck, it doesn’t even have to be a black soldier; a white soldier could have his sensibilities offended, or someone who just didn’t like the two joke-tellers would have a weapon, just anything. And you can find the same problems with jokes about women if a female soldier overhears.

    The Department of Defense is going to have a lot of regulations to examine and rewrite, and a lot of member education to do. And they’re going to wind up going zero tolerance on this, because there really won’t be much choice.

    But I also think back to what my daughters told me when they were in high school, about how this guy or that girl was openly homosexual. The kids enlisting these days simply have had more exposure to this type of thing, and care less about it; they’ll adapt easier than the older non-coms and officers.

    The serious Dana (bd7e62)

  53. “being for repeal of DADT is very very easily defended on conservative grounds where individuals are allowed to succeed or fail on merit”

    Absolutely, because everybody knows being open about your sexuality is the key to success in both the corporate and military world. I read that on a gay website.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  54. San Diego. It was at the Carl Strauss brewery in Sorrento Valley.

    wiltard (e7577d)

  55. Will transgender people be able to serve openly?

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  56. On some of the milblogs you can find guys complaining/noting that lesbian servicemembers seem to enjoy a protected status.
    One of the complaints is that lesbians are allowed to house together on base as girlfriend/girlfriend even between rank and within command.
    This is strictly forbidden between heterosexual couples.

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  57. _______________________________________

    It strikes me as a ridiculous question and misguided sentiment.

    Tell that to folks like Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynn. IOW, I’d be surprised if their POV wasn’t shaped whatsoever by their daughter’s sexuality. People don’t live in a vacuum, so, yep, they’re going to be influenced by family members or friends, much less their own behavior.

    Extending that one step further, look at how the culture of political correctness (run amok) found in society overall has affected no less than the mindset of the US military.

    Mark (411533)

  58. One of the complaints is that lesbians are allowed to house together on base as girlfriend/girlfriend even between rank and within command.
    This is strictly forbidden between heterosexual couples.

    Then it should be forbidden among lesbians.
    Perhaps the fact that nobody can officially ask the lesbians if they are gay (and therefore a couple rather than roommates) contributes to this situation. If so, DADT repeal should make that easier to enforce.

    MayBee (081489)

  59. Maybe you can rationalize that question, but it was still Teh Suck,Mark.

    JD (07faa1)

  60. ____________________________________

    One of the complaints is that lesbians are allowed to house together on base as girlfriend/girlfriend even between rank and within command.

    Again, when an openly pro-Islamic, anti-US-policy fanatic, no less, is tolerated within the ranks of the US military, the boundaries of what’s proper or improper in general are just about ripped apart at the seams.

    Well, at least this type of insanity hasn’t affected the MSM. Oh, wait.

    Well, at least it hasn’t affected public schools and universities. Oh, wait.

    Well, at least it hasn’t affected religious institutions (ie, mainstream Christianity). Oh, wait…

    Mark (411533)

  61. Dana, I agree with what you wrote regarding the younger generation being more tolerant of homosexuality. But school is different from the military. We all know people with an axe to grind, but you have to agree that in the service it’s much more serious. I have no problem with gays. In the eighties, when I lived in Los Angeles, I had twenty one friends that were gay. The reason why I know the exact number is that I went to twenty funerals because of the AIDS epidemic. To my shame, I avoided friendships with gays for a number of years because it became overwhelmingly depressing.

    wiltard (e7577d)

  62. Barky just sent me a message:

    Moments ago, the Senate voted to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    When that bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed.

    Gay and lesbian service members — brave Americans who enable our freedoms — will no longer have to hide who they are.

    The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one.

    This victory belongs to you. Without your commitment, the promise I made as a candidate would have remained just that.

    Instead, you helped prove again that no one should underestimate this movement. Every phone call to a senator on the fence, every letter to the editor in a local paper, and every message in a congressional inbox makes it clear to those who would stand in the way of justice: We will not quit.

    This victory also belongs to Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and our many allies in Congress who refused to let politics get in the way of what was right.

    Like you, they never gave up, and I want them to know how grateful we are for that commitment.

    Will you join me in thanking them by adding your name to Organizing for America’s letter?

    I will make sure these messages are delivered — you can also add a comment about what the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” means to you.

    As Commander in Chief, I fought to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it weakens our national security and military readiness. It violates the fundamental American principles of equality and fairness.

    But this victory is also personal.

    I will never know what it feels like to be discriminated against because of my sexual orientation.

    But I know my story would not be possible without the sacrifice and struggle of those who came before me — many I will never meet, and can never thank.

    I know this repeal is a crucial step for civil rights, and that it strengthens our military and national security. I know it is the right thing to do.

    But the rightness of our cause does not guarantee success, and today, celebration of this historic step forward is tempered by the defeat of another — the DREAM Act. I am incredibly disappointed that a minority of senators refused to move forward on this important, commonsense reform that most Americans understand is the right thing for our country. On this issue, our work must continue.

    Today, I’m proud that we took these fights on.

    Please join me in thanking those in Congress who helped make “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal possible:

    http://my.barackobama.com/Repealed

    Thank you,

    Barack

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  63. Tell that to folks like Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynn. IOW, I’d be surprised if their POV wasn’t shaped whatsoever by their daughter’s sexuality. People don’t live in a vacuum, so, yep, they’re going to be influenced by family members or friends, much less their own behavior.

    Yes, of course people don’t live in a vacuum.
    If you are saying you are against repeal of DADT, what are your influences? Is it that you don’t know any gay people? Are you influenced by Fred Phelps?

    MayBee (081489)

  64. Well, let the lawsuits begin. Anyone discharged from the military due to DADT is now a plaintiff. Hopefully, it will work itself out.

    wiltard (e7577d)

  65. I was influenced by Mark Bingham. He’s dead now but I bet he would think this was a very sensible decision, about the repealing.

    It’s hard to say for sure though cause of he’s dead.

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  66. _____________________________________________

    If you are saying you are against repeal of DADT, what are your influences?

    Things like this…

    Rupert Everett has revealed he had a six-year affair with the late Paula Yates.

    The “My Best Friend’s Wedding” actor – who is openly homosexual – has admitted to a string of affairs with famous women, including Susan Sarandon, in his new autobiography.

    “I am mystified by my heterosexual affairs, but then I am mystified by most of my relationships,” he said.

    The 47-year-old star admits he had an on-off relationship with Yates during her marriage to Sir Bob Geldof.

    timesonline.co.uk:

    The media may also be excused for not knowing that [actor Wally] Cox was only one of many men with whom [Marlon] Brando had liaisons. Brando was bisexual and voracious. The roles he lived off-screen were even more provocative than those he created in films.

    At his peak his list of lovers read like a Who’s Who of Hollywood and beyond, including Burt Lancaster, Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich, Grace Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Leonard Bernstein, Noël Coward, Shelley Winters, Ava Gardner, Gloria Vanderbilt, Tyrone Power, Hedy Lamarr, Anna Magnani, Montgomery Clift (they once ran naked down Wall Street together for a dare), James Dean, Tallulah Bankhead, Ingrid Bergman, Edith Piaf and Doris Duke (at the time the world’s richest woman).

    Mark (411533)

  67. bloody hell you flog poor Rupert ceaselessly

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  68. OK, Mark. So if Rupert were in the military instead of show business, you’d only have to hear about his heterosexual affairs. The homosexual affairs would have to be a secret. How does that improve things?

    MayBee (081489)

  69. here’s the graphic cbs.com is running with here

    a guy saluting the flag of gay as opposed to the flag of America

    Good job CBS you’ve balanced tacky with stupid in a way few have ever achieved.

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  70. _________________________________________

    bloody hell you flog poor Rupert ceaselessly

    Don’t forget my mentioning Marlon Brando too.

    But if anyone wants me to extend my observations to people in the non-public sphere, there is a person where I work who is bisexual or whatever—he has never come out and openly labeled himself.

    His personal life is not talked about casually, and he doesn’t come right out and blurt, “hey, I’m dating a dude right now!” Or “I scored with Bill last night!” But it’s common knowledge in the workplace that he likes getting intimate with other guys. That along with his history, which everyone also is aware of: He was in a traditional marriage (ie, a heterosexual one) a few years ago and has a son and daughter (and NOT by way of test tubes).

    The clincher: I had a casual conversation with him one day and we were talking about the difficulties of his living in a one-income household. He told me he originally never imagined he’d ever end up divorced. He said his ex-wife was difficult to live with because she apparently is bi-polar (or something like that). This guy didn’t say anything about his homo- or bisexuality being the cause of his current situation.

    BTW, he’s very, very liberal—he told me that he didn’t think Hugo Chavez was a radical.

    Mark (411533)

  71. How does that f@cking make one damn bit of difference?

    JD (07faa1)

  72. _________________________________________

    The homosexual affairs would have to be a secret. How does that improve things?

    Because most people don’t want to hear about that type of behavior. That’s just plain, simple reality.

    When even a variety of do-your-own-thang liberals tend to get a bit uncomfortable about the issue of homosexuality (particularly involving males more than females) — and I’ve noticed that discomfort or raised eyebrow in the Hollywood crowd, no less — that speaks louder than words.

    Mark (411533)

  73. Because most people don’t want to hear about that type of behavior. That’s just plain, simple reality.

    You seem pretty interested.
    I believe our soldiers who don’t want to hear about gay affairs will find a way to not hear about them. They are pretty good about getting the STFU message across.

    MayBee (081489)

  74. ________________________________________

    They are pretty good about getting the STFU message across.

    If “STFU” is so effective, then how does that explain the anti-US rantings and pro-Islamic-proselytizing that Major Nidal Hasa apparently was into while serving in the US military?

    Mark (411533)

  75. “…studio city…”

    feets, the SFV has never been considered as part of “real” America.
    Even in L.A., it’s an outlier, both physically and metaphorically.

    AD-RtR/OS! (844268)

  76. we have a Target and I heard there was a Home Depot but I think it might be in Burbank

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  77. I heard at the edge of the valley – sort of over after you go under the 405 – there are these dragons what guard the way in and out

    I keep saying I’m gonna go check it out but I think I’m all talk

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  78. If “STFU” is so effective, then how does that explain the anti-US rantings and pro-Islamic-proselytizing that Major Nidal Hasa apparently was into while serving in the US military?

    How does that compare? Hasan obviously wanted to destroy our country. He wasn’t merely discussing things that made people personally uncomfortable.
    The military tolerated him for ridiculous reasons. But the answer wouldn’t be to have a no-Muslim policy in the military, would it?

    MayBee (081489)

  79. “They are pretty good about getting the STFU message across.”

    MayBee – Wait a minute. That sounds like DADT.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  80. I heard at the edge of the valley – sort of over after you go under the 405 – there are these dragons what guard the way in and out

    heh.
    Over the 405, Happs.

    MayBee (081489)

  81. Hopefully, the gays won’t take offense at the sight any religious articles. I wouldn’t want to be caught wearing a cross and deemed a bigot due to my religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

    wiltard (e7577d)

  82. I would support a program that allowed those brought here as minor children to be considered as still living in their native country and meeting that country’s eligibility rules for immigration to the United States.

    Normally I would agree (and would agree in most cases other than Mexico), but due to the immigration quota system and preferential line-jumping, there is NO LEGAL IMMIGRATION from Mexico unless you are a relative of a legal US resident. By the time the relatives are taken care of the quota is exhausted. (The quota for Mexico is the same as the quota for Mozambique).

    Not only do we need to control our borders to solve the illegal immigration problem, but we need to adjust our laws so that there are legal immigration options. As it stands now, the law is as absurd as a 7MPH speed limit.

    A DREAM Act that allowed young adults who had been BROUGHT here illegally by their parents to wash away their involuntary illegality by serving for 4 or so years in the military, gaining a green card at the end of their service, would be perfectly fine.

    Or do you think we are going to send them all home?

    Kevin M (298030)

  83. “there are these dragons what guard the way in and out”

    Mr. Feets – We have Trolls and Orcs guarding the Wisconsin border here or so they tell me. They don’t want nobody stealing their tasty government subsidized Wisconsin cheese.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  84. Not only do we need to control our borders to solve the illegal immigration problem, but we need to adjust our laws so that there are legal immigration options. As it stands now, the law is as absurd as a 7MPH speed limit.

    We’re already taking in too many immigrants now. Our infrastructure is having a difficult time coping as it stands, and we can’t afford to repair it in a reasonable amount of time. I think I read that we allow one million every year. How many more should we allow in a year?

    wiltard (e7577d)

  85. ___________________________________________

    How does that compare? Hasan obviously wanted to destroy our country. He wasn’t merely discussing things that made people personally uncomfortable.

    The example of Hasan is the epitome that runs counter to your assumption that “STFU” — or anti-political-correctness — will somehow affect conduct and behavior in the military. IOW, if a member of the US Army can be just about 100% treasonous and get away with it, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to foresee two openly, proudly, radically gay guys doing a version of a “gay-pride-day parade” right out in the open — on a military base, no less — rules and regulations be damned.

    Mark (411533)

  86. wiltard wrote:

    We’re already taking in too many immigrants now. Our infrastructure is having a difficult time coping as it stands, and we can’t afford to repair it in a reasonable amount of time. I think I read that we allow one million every year. How many more should we allow in a year?

    Well, my suggestion is that when we catch an illegal immigrant who is actually working, we keep him and deport a welfare recipient in his place.

    The snarky Dana (bd7e62)

  87. IOW, if a member of the US Army can be just about 100% treasonous and get away with it, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to foresee two openly, proudly, radically gay guys doing a version of a “gay-pride-day parade” right out in the open — on a military base, no less — rules and regulations be damned.

    So you are saying the US Army has no control over its soldiers, but the one group they should be free to discharge at will are gay people?

    If the problem a soldier has is he doesn’t want to hear about his bunkmate’s boyfriend, the proper response is to move away.
    If the problem a soldier has is he is hearing someone speak of treason, the proper response is to report it.

    If the military does nothing about the treasonous guy, that’s horrifying. It isn’t the gay guy’s fault, though.

    MayBee (081489)

  88. Only marginally on topic, but the Dems are again doing an excellent job of showing their contempt of the unwashed masses.

    JD (306f5d)

  89. Typical Liberal Feel-Goodism…
    OK, so homo’s can be recognized as such when they get killed in Iraq/Afghanistan, as 1006 men/women/other have since the President(Peace be upon Him) ass-umed his Oval Orifice, I mean Office. Or maybe it IS the Oval Orifice now..
    And do you know how card it is to find that number since Bush left Orifice, I mean Office? I think MY blog’s about the only one, and I get it from somewhere else, I’d tell you where, but then I’d have to kill you, and yes I’ve memorized all the Non-Gay parts of “Top Gun”
    So seriously, now Homos can serve Openly, but they still can’t get married, and how many senior Officers these days are single?? They all get married, cause they don’t want people to think there Gay…
    And if there “Unit” ever gets in some heavy action, they can’t donate blood, not if they’ve had sex with a man(even once!) since 1977, which is 33 hard long years to go without “gettin sum” and don’t blame Bush/Chaney, blame the Red Cross.
    And oh yeah, even if they have sex with a man, its Illegal(at Bushwood) article 69 of the UCMJ, which is the book they throw at you, when they say there gonna throw the book at you..
    ARTICLE SIXTY NINE!!!!! 69, 6-9, Neun und Sechzig! Who says Military Prosecutors don’t have a sense of humor?
    OK, its really Article 134, but the slang term is “Article 69″ and I know noones been prosecuted for the S-word since AlGore served, but its still the law, and don’t think some prudish Marine Batallion Commander won’t charge some cute young corporal who resists the Old Man’s Swagger Stick…

    Frank “no sex with a man since…..umm NEVER” Drackman

    Frank Drackman (550e6d)

  90. MayBee- You don’t know much about the military do you? We have just created a protected class that will be able to do whatever it wants without worry. Sort of like MAJ Hassan, as has been said. I pitty the NCO or officer who crosses a gay soldier. Careers will be destroyed. Liberals have now taken the one branch of government that can do it’s job and sown the seeds of it’s downfall.

    Pat (897933)

  91. As a soldier who just came back from a year in one of the most violent parts of Afghanistan, I saw a unit, first hand, which was nearly unable to function because of an inappropriate heterosexual relationship involving a key leader. And, I’ve seen similar things before.

    This concept that bringing females into the military has had few negative side effects is preposterous, and the kind of political correctness that leads us down the path of obviously bad ideas, because we won’t ackowledge their flaws.

    Life in a barracks means a bunch of hormonal late adolescents are running around in close proximity – when deployed, it means literally a couple of feet away. I don’t expect much in the way of sexual harrassment, or anti-gay violence. Though, I guarantee, both will happen, the latter of which will be trumpeted by the usual suspects and bring with it cavalcades of political correctness, such as followed the Barry Winchell murder in 1999.

    But other things are almost as disruptive, and equally foreseeable:
    – The first time a straight male is uncomfortable with scantilly-clad men similarly displayed, the military, being the military, will ban all such displays. With them will go one of the few pleasures of deployed life, and arrive hostilities.
    – A single unwanted (or merely perceived) sexual advance will bring entire platoons to a halt, with investigations and re-shuffling of soldiers. There are only 18 or so platoons in a standard rifle battalion, which covers hundreds of square miles of terrain. Losing one, even for just a few days, will effect the fight.
    – Immature young folks, on both sides, will handle matters badly. There will be as much “I’m a fag and there’s nothing you can do about it” as there will be “I don’t want that fag near me.”

    But the biggest problem with rescinding DADT is that it actually opens the miltiary to no one who should be serving. I’ve served along side at least two excellent soldiers I concluded were homosexual. It was more important to them to be soldiers.

    The folks who won’t serve under DADT are the ones who put their sexuality first — to whom being gay is more important than serving. The ones who will stand in line at the recruiting station now are the ones who want to show “those bigots” and act in ways they know some straights find offensive.

    That kind of element in a platoon is one that good NCOs can deal with, until they are saddled by the inevitable political correctness that will come with this.

    DADT worked for all but those to whom sexualtiy was more important than service. Now, the entire military has made sexuality the priority. What could possibly go wrong?

    I guess we’re about to find out.

    Robert C. J. Parry (f27afb)

  92. MayBee wrote:

    If the problem a soldier has is he doesn’t want to hear about his bunkmate’s boyfriend, the proper response is to move away.

    No, the proper response is to tell the barracks mate (I hope they aren’t actually bunk mates!) that he really does not want to hear anything about that stuff, and the barracks mate understands that he has to shut up.

    The serious Dana (bd7e62)

  93. MAJ Hassan happened because we have people in this country who want to pretend there is no religious ideology behind the enemies we currently fight.
    To bring him up as a poster boy against gays serving without having to pretend they are not seems like bringing up Tim McVeigh whenever we talk about terrorist acts in this country.

    If any gay person starts talking the way Hassan did, I hope beyond all hope the military will get rid of him.

    If not, our military is broken in a way that has nothing to do with DADT or its repeal.

    MayBee (081489)

  94. “I guess we’re about to find out.”

    Robert C. J. Parry – And what better time than while we are at war?

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  95. I guess they’ll just have to delete the “Ain’t nothin’ from Oklahoma but steers and queers. You queer, boy?” line from An Officer and a Gentleman.

    The movie fan Dana (bd7e62)

  96. Of course, we could send a company comprised entirely of homosexual soldiers at the Taliban, have them kick their Allah-lovin’ butts, and then let them know that they got beat by a bunch of [proper term for a bundle of sticks.] They’ll all give up in shame.

    The Dana with a sick sense of humor (bd7e62)

  97. The Dems will no longer have this issue to clobber the hohophobic conservatives with, even though it was the Dems idea.

    JD (306f5d)

  98. ___________________________________________

    If the military does nothing about the treasonous guy, that’s horrifying. It isn’t the gay guy’s fault, though.

    But you do admit that the idiocy of political-correctness run amok has affected (and infected) no less than the US military? IOW, we’re not talking about the local office of the ACLU. We’re not talking about the local branch of the Episcopalian church. We’re talking about the US Army, Navy, Marines.

    I just want people of the left to strongly and clearly start stating “political correctness has gone off the deep end and we all need to start fighting it!”

    And I don’t want people of the left to proclaim: “If do-gooder legislation is enacted, the law of unintended consequences — much less the concept that the road to hell is paved with good intentions — will not pop up and knock us on our ass!”

    Mark (411533)

  99. I keep getting filtrated.

    JD (306f5d)

  100. No, the proper response is to tell the barracks mate (I hope they aren’t actually bunk mates!) that he really does not want to hear anything about that stuff, and the barracks mate understands that he has to shut up.

    True, serious Dana.
    But he already didn’t like my STFU solution.

    MayBee (081489)

  101. Bizarrely, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr2965eah/pdf/BILLS-111hr2965eah.pdf (the DADT repeal act) doesn’t also repeal UCMJ 125, meaning that sodomy remains illegal for people in the military.

    I’m really not sure what it means to repeal the ban on homosexuals openly serving but to retain the ban on sodomy. Other than: open homosexuals are allowed but they aren’t allowed to have sex? What?

    aphrael (9802d6)

  102. __________________________________________

    DADT worked for all but those to whom sexualtiy was more important than service.

    Not just their sexuality but their political instincts too. A high percentage of the most aggressively, defiantly pro-gay-agenda guys who are homosexual tend to also have leftist sentiments. They’re the ones who therefore will be most brazen about making the military fit their agenda, not the other way around. They’re the ones who will be far too enthusiastic about the idea of ambulance-chasing litigation.

    They see the Nidal Hasas of the military, and, in turn, the Nidal Hasas see the post-DADT gays, and so the circle is complete.

    Mark (411533)

  103. Mark: to be fair, DADT also worked for those straight people to whom sexuality is more important than service. In fact, such straight people were never even asked the question of whether sexuality was more important than service.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  104. MayBee wrote:

    But he already didn’t like my STFU solution.

    Sadly enough, the military will have to write regulations so tightly that STFU will be the only possible choice.

    This will never be perfect, but what system depending on 18-24 year old men ever is?

    The Dana who sees problems ahead (bd7e62)

  105. but what system depending on 18-24 year old men ever is?

    No system depending on humans is ever perfect; we can strive for perfection, but it is inherent in our condition that it will not, can not, be attained.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  106. Mark wrote:

    A high percentage of the most aggressively, defiantly pro-gay-agenda guys who are homosexual tend to also have leftist sentiments. They’re the ones who therefore will be most brazen about making the military fit their agenda, not the other way around. They’re the ones who will be far too enthusiastic about the idea of ambulance-chasing litigation.

    And they’re the ones who won’t make it through Basic, but who will do something so stupid as to get chaptered out.

    The Dana who sees also sees solutions (bd7e62)

  107. even between rank and within command.

    that’s a real threat to discipline, and shouldn’t be allowed for lesbians any more than it is for straight couples.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  108. aphrael, that’s bizarre that the UCMJ is not amended. It is difficult to say if that is a message or yet another example of the incompetence of the Democratic leadership of Congress.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. SPQR, if you expect logic from these folks, you will be gravely dissapointed,

    narciso (6075d0)

  110. Mr. JD speaking of analogies dirty socialist propaganda whore Viv Schiller’s National Soros Radio offers this strained and confuzzed one

    But as change continues, resistance to it also persists. That is the lesson of the national elections of 2008 and 2010. And it was the lesson of the Senate votes taken this Saturday morning.

    On the same day the Senate took a step toward repealing DADT, it failed to break another filibuster threat against the DREAM Act. This is a bill allowing the children of people who entered the U.S. illegally to earn citizenship if they go to college or serve in military.

    […]

    It took nearly a generation to muster this many votes for gays in the military. How long will it take to find that many for the next meaningful change in the immigration laws?

    that must be one of those things what makes sense in a propaganda whore’s head and later they’re like ok explain to me what I was thinking there again?

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  111. aphrael wrote:

    that’s a real threat to discipline, and shouldn’t be allowed for lesbians any more than it is for straight couples.

    But it is assumed that two same-sex roommates in bachelor enlisted (or officer) quarters are just that, roommates, and not lovers. And in the vast majority of cases, that will remain the case. The military is not going to be able to provide single quarters on base for everyone, so they’ll have to have regulations which deal with this; short of putting cameras in quarters, I don’t see how it could be enforced, however.

    Since the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, there’ll be problems the first time a same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, requests married quarters on base.

    The Dana who sees cultural challenges ahead (bd7e62)

  112. I’m worried far more about a disgruntled private gaining access to critical state secrets and broadcasting them at will to the entire world. If a private had that kind of access, one must assume that hundreds (perhaps thousands) more had similar opportunity, but only loyalty and a sense of duty prevented their treasonous actions. In essence, one assh-ole (who wrote publicly about it!) that he was tired of getting coffee for his superiors went ahead and put into action a series of tragic events for our country. This is the critical issue IMHO, not who’s gay and who isn’t. As with Hassan, we need that McCain/Lieberman committee to get off their asses and start investigating the structural problems re: human intelligence and PC – ness that have become infested in all of our military branches.

    Dmac (498ece)

  113. *confuzzled* I mean

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  114. narciso, I expect incompetence and I’ve never been disappointed in the Democratic Congressional leadership to date.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  115. ______________________________________

    but who will do something so stupid as to get chaptered out.

    From your lips to God’s ear—oops, that phrase may offend the atheists and agnostics out there.

    But the example of Major Nidal Hasa, even post-9-11, and which even today still astonishes me in what it says about how effete and dumbed-down the nation’s military culture apparently has become, means people should take nothing for granted.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  116. It doesn’t make sense, you can’t make those who are
    illegal legal, that’s the lesson of Simpson Mazzoli, it encouraged more immigration not more,
    furthermore we have two or more campaigns in the same conflict, our military is being degraded vis
    a vis, our future adversaries, and this is what they care about.

    narciso (6075d0)

  117. Mark wrote:

    but who will do something so stupid as to get chaptered out.

    From your lips to God’s ear—oops, that phrase may offend the atheists and agnostics out there.

    The military has chapels on bases, and the atheists have to learn to live with that, so tough for them!

    At Fort Jackson, some (not all) of the Basic Combat Training units allowed soldiers to leave their weapons behind in the barracks when they went to church, which meant that some soldiers always had to stay behind to be responsible for them. It kind of encourages the soldiers to go to church! :)

    My younger daughter went to early Mass, and was back in the barracks when the Protestant service started; she was lugging around four M-16s at once a couple of times. Of course, there are also a lot of units in which the drill sergeants require the soldiers to take their weapons to church; BCT soldiers are issued an M-16-A2, and it is their constant companion, other than in the latrine, from week one until a couple days before graduation.

    As for getting chaptered out, I got letters with stories of such stupidity that you wouldn’t believe, although some of the soldiers survived with an Article 15. The best one was a soldier who tried to smuggle a live 50 caliber round out of the rifle range, just for a souvenir.

    Didn’t work. Loss of rank, and 45 days of extra duty.

    The Army daddy Dana (bd7e62)

  118. Hundreds of thousands of illegal “kids?” Some of whom have hair that is turn gray from age? I have read estimates of over a million.

    Remember in 1986 it was estimated that about a million illegal aliens would come “out of the shadows.” Well, 3 million trooped out and claimed the amnesty giveaway.

    The answer to the “Dreamies” is deportation.

    Wondering (0cb8c4)

  119. MayBee
    Good perspective.

    Thanks

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  120. Speaking of insanity; href

    narciso (6075d0)

  121. Lame Duck sessions suck. Good riddance to DADT and let’s hope that this is not the beginning of more social experimentation in the military.

    JD (822109)

  122. The last time DADT came up, a few people claimed the living conditions in the current military were more private than what I was used to with “dorm life” in the 70’s. Mr. Parry suggests that is a bunch of hogwash in a combat setting, which is where it is most important.

    So I’ll repeat my argument. Would the “typical” heterosexual among us feel fine with sharing sleeping quarters and bathrooms (are showers private?) with members of the opposite sex? Even if you did, what would a spouse left behind feel?

    Even assuming the sexuality of the typical gay is on par with the typical heterosexual, how can it not cause tension? If I’m standing at the urinal and out of the corner of my eye I see an attractive woman walk in and say “hi” to me and go into a stall and close the door I’m going have an adrenalin rush wondering what the heck is going on. Did I walk into the women’s bathroom by mistake? Wait, I’m standing at a urinal, that doesn’t make sense!

    So, are people supposed to act like they are not sexual beings, that they are “above that”? Do people turn into 7th graders (or whatever) again? (Oh, I’m waiting to take my shower when Suzie goes to the bathroom, heh, heh.) Do people desensitize, “Sex, yeah, a bodily function like eating or breathing, what’s the big deal?”

    I don’t think people should be kicked out of the military for their sexual preference if their conduct within the military has been appropriate, but welcoming people to come into the military with the idea they can make a point of being public with their sexuality is just assinine.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  123. Is there a military equivalent to the civilian workplace claims of sexual harassment and hostile environment? If so, we may see more of those claims as these policies develop.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  124. On some of the milblogs you can find guys complaining/noting that lesbian servicemembers seem to enjoy a protected status.
    Comment by SteveG — 12/18/2010 @ 1:53 pm

    This has been the case since the early 80’s when I was in the Navy. I was on two Destroyer Tenders from ’84 to ’87. One of the ships had over 70% of the women on board who admitted to being either gay or bi-sexual. This was published in our shipboard news letter. Nobody cared.

    We also had gay men on board, but the situation was completely different for them. As long as they kept it to themselves, they were not bothered. But when they would come out of the closet, they were discharged within two weeks. Even when we were overseas, they were off the ship with as soon as the ship docked.

    Most of the time, the crew new who was gay and who wasn’t. Most of us could care less what they were doing sexually, or with whom as long as it wasn’t us.

    However, there were a couple of guys while I was stationed on ships that got drunk and climbed into the wrong rack. That was usually a bad idea as the person they climbed in with often didn’t appreciate the advance. Violently.

    Happy feet, you talk about bigotry being bad. That is true. When I was in the Navy, (’83 – ’91), there were very distinct divisions within the crew based on race. If a white guy were sit in the wrong part of the mess decks at lunch, he would probably get beaten the next time he went off base. Most of us only made that mistake once.

    There were also special programs that whites were the only ones excluded from. BOOST was a program that allowed “disadvantaged recruits” to be sent to college to get a degree then become officers. “Disadvantaged” did not include white recruits, no matter how poor they were.

    Creating separate categories of people to give special “protections” to goes a long ways to creating tensions rather than alleviating them.

    I work at a number of companies in San Diego in the Hillcrest area. This is considered a gay enclave in San Diego. I have been sexually harassed on a number of occasions while working in this area. People at companies I work for have behaved in ways towards me that would not be acceptable in any other situation. Had I acted in a similar fashion, I would have been charged with hate crimes or sexual assault. Yet it is okay when it comes from a gay aimed at a straight man.

    At some point, you have to stop putting people into categories which make them more protected than others.

    Jay H Curtis (8f6541)

  125. Is there a military equivalent to the civilian workplace claims of sexual harassment and hostile environment

    NCO’s are famous for harrassment…for your stupidity, your laziness, and for a general you’ve got your head-up-your-a$$ attitude.
    If that isn’t creating a hostile work environment, I suppose the only saving grace, is that your own NCO’s aren’t the guys who will be shooting at you.

    AD-RtR/OS! (844268)

  126. Sexual harassment was a career ender when I was in. I doubt it any more acceptable now than it was 20 years ago.

    Jay H Curtis (8f6541)

  127. Mr. red I am a staunch conservative…

    yup, and so is Meghan McLame.

    come on by for a beer summit after the rain event is over and we’ll talk about it. either that or we can meet at “The Counter”, since they carry my brand.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  128. Here’s a positive effect on the repeal, and it’s happening even as we speak:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Harvard_Yale_moving_on_ROTC.html

    If snotty places of Lefty group – think like Havaad put ROTC progams back on their campuses, that can only be a good thing in the long run. My university always had a ROTC presence on campus, and it helped to have a reminder of the armed services every day, even if it was a subtle one.

    Dmac (498ece)

  129. 124.Is there a military equivalent to the civilian workplace claims of sexual harassment and hostile environment? If so, we may see more of those claims as these policies develop.

    Comment by DRJ — 12/18/2010 @ 6:59 pm

    There are Equal Opportunity Laws that don’t need to be changed in the least bit to accomodate the openly gay people who serve. As to seeing more of these claims… it is possible. I enlisted in ’81 and until the early nineties you still had the occasional woman who would make false claims along those lines. By the time I retired in ’07 it very rarely occurred.
    One of the weirder things that happened to me was having a EEO complaint made by a white guy (I’m white as well) for how I handled a incident in which a black person had a slur left in their inbox(long before email). Turns out it was another black person who did it but to get to the truth I called each person in (all regardless of race) individually and asked them if they knew anything about the note.
    The person who complained said he felt offended for being “accused”. Not much came of it and the unit’s top enlisted person, who was black, questioned me about it. Told him what happened and what i had done. then asked him how he would have handled it. He said the only thing he might have done differently was to have everyone in the room at the same time but what I did was not ‘wrong’.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  130. If an all-homosexual army enhances our ability to win wars I’m in favor of an all-homosexual army. If a no-homosexual army enhances our ability to win wars, I’m in favor of a no-homosexual army.

    As far as I’m concerned, enhancing our ability to win wars is the ONLY considerationn when it comes to deciding who is going to be in the military.

    I have no opinion on this particular move, because I don’t have a clue whether or not allowing openly homosexual people to serve will enhance our ability to win wars or not.

    The DREAM Act is absolute crap.

    Dave Surls (9769f0)

  131. The sodomy definition in article 125 of the UCMJ (and its explanatory materials) remains very broad indeed. It’s so broad, in fact, that it would make any oral or anal sex between consenting adults punishable with up to a “[d]ishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.” That’s right, a loving blowjob between husband and wife (even when they are, respectively, male and female) seemingly could net any service member in that couple a five-year prison sentence.

    I’m no military lawyer, but that’s at least an improvement from the last time (30-odd years ago) that I had occasion to advise a client on this matter — back then, IIRC, even non-violent sodomy was still a capital crime. And I suspect that the big question is how much, if any, of article 125 is still constitutional after Lawrence v. Texas, which in turn probably comes down to whether the federal government could demonstrate a compelling state interest specific to the military that the State of Texas lacked. Or maybe it depends on how Mr. Justice Kennedy would feel when contemplating the sweet mysteries of life and substantive due process against a background of Sousa marches on a West Point parade ground, I dunno.

    Finally: I don’t think the repeal of DADT will lead to any successful civil lawsuits by those who’ve been discharged or otherwise punished for their sexual preference in the past. It’s a mistake to read this as the creation of a new right unique to homosexuals, and repeal of DADT certainly doesn’t amount to a governmental admission that DADT was unlawful or violative of anyone’s rights while in place. It’s way less than that — just a change in classification rules based on the perceived soundness and wisdom of policy, rather than upon some imagined inalienable constitutional right.

    Rather, repeal of DADT is the elimination, on a prospective and on-going basis, of a categorization by the military — specifically, sexual preference — that in the past could result in negative consequences depending on which category a given individual is classified into.

    In very, very sharp contrast to the judicial imposition of gay marriage, this was a policy decision made for the U.S. military through (small-d) democratic processes of the legislative and executive branches. Repeal of DADT therefore has a political legitimacy that judicially imposed gay marriage completely lacks. I think DADT was unwise but absolutely constitutional, so I’m glad to see it undone by Congress and the president; but I would have very much opposed seeing it struck down by the courts.

    Beldar (8b6816)

  132. Dustin,
    You may find the floowing interesting.
    http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP25&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U

    and
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700035949/Veterans-in-Congress-US-on-the-decline-since-end-of-draft.html

    It means that roughly 12 of every 100 people has served in the military. Like you, I have met plenty of people that were not citizens and who were fine troops but they were not illegal immigrants when they joined up.

    In other words, there are plenty of people available to fill the billets but most don’t volunteer. Telling people that you must serve x number of years to earn the DREAM benefits seems pretty cynical to me. And for the record I think the Dream act was a bad idea in the first place.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  133. Beldar,

    When we were getting our DADT briefings by the JAG reps in the nineties I put one on the spot with the following comment “By our president’s definition of what doesn’t constitute sex there really is no such thing as a lesbian, correct?”
    He was nice enough to just smile and say “I’m just delivering the message” instead lighting me up for being a smartass.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  134. Beldar, the repeal bill explicitly does not create a private right of action.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  135. The idea that this could allow a discharged person to bring suit is simply mind boggling to me.

    JD (07faa1)

  136. Off Topic

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year everyone!

    EricPWJohnson (e5ce2e)

  137. Good job CBS you’ve balanced tacky with stupid in a way few have ever achieved.
    Comment by happyfeet — 12/18/2010 @ 2:36 pm

    — [Insert multiple misogynist comments about Sarah Palin here]

    Icy Texan (296157)

  138. “This is just like they did when they integrated the negroes”

    The constant comparisons of rapists, homosexuals, bestialists, pedophiles and other sexual orientations to blacks is grossly offensive to the civil rights movement.

    tehag (09d142)

  139. MD in Philly wrote:

    The last time DADT came up, a few people claimed the living conditions in the current military were more private than what I was used to with “dorm life” in the 70′s. Mr. Parry suggests that is a bunch of hogwash in a combat setting, which is where it is most important.

    So I’ll repeat my argument. Would the “typical” heterosexual among us feel fine with sharing sleeping quarters and bathrooms (are showers private?) with members of the opposite sex? Even if you did, what would a spouse left behind feel?

    At least as far as my daughters’ experiences are concerned, there ain’t a lot of privacy. When my older daughters was in basic, she was in a “bay” with 59 other women. When my younger daughter did basic, she was in a room with seven other women, but in AIT at Fort Gordon, it’s a bay with a few dozen others. Someone on active duty assigned to bachelor enlisted quarters might have a two-man dorm room.

    Maybe we can go to the basic training dorm and showers scene from Starship Troopers. :)

    The Army daddy Dana (bd7e62)

  140. MD,
    The spouses of missile crew members got very upset when females were mixed with males for silo duty which lasted 24-72 hours. But the commanders pressed and it went on just fine. That aspect is simply a trust issue between the couple and the same case could be made for the partner of the gay person. The AF made a commitment to private rooms with shared bathroom/living area and most don’t have a room mate that sleeps in their room.
    As for your question about “the typical…” the short answer is yes, I would feel somewhat self-conscious.
    That said, I think it is reasonable to point out that the percentage of gays in society makes the possibility of having a gay male roommate about one in ten and female 3 in one hundred.
    In the AF communal showers are usually only found in basic. With a TI screaming “you have 5 minutes to S#@#, shower and shave” there is not much time for tomfoolery. Most guys have an invisible neck brace in those situations and if they see someone “checking them out” they will usually say something.
    But when in combat I doubt many people are thinking too much about getting laid.

    VOR2 (64b3f9)

  141. Memo for current and prospective gay enlistees before they do their DADT end-zone vogue dance: they should remember some things I learned during my military career.

    Namely:

    Supervisors and commanders worth their salt know 20 different ways to legally turn your life into a living hell. And you’ll be damn lucky if you can even figure out half of them.

    Ergo, if supervisors and commanders can’t get rid of you because you’re gay, they’ll simply find something else on which they can *ahem* nail you. Viz: Article 134 of the UCMJ (the ‘General Article’). So, gays, if you want to join, go ahead. But be prepared to undergo a career colonoscopy every day you serve, whether you enjoy it or not in your off-duty time.

    MarkJ (42fe5b)

  142. __________________________________________

    The constant comparisons of rapists, homosexuals, bestialists, pedophiles and other sexual orientations to blacks is grossly offensive to the civil rights movement.

    That’s even more the case since — and as I’ve noted previously — there apparently is quite a bit of bisexuality among even various self-described homosexuals. Call it a case of shape shifting, if you will.

    If racial characteristics were similar to sexuality, then people would have to be human chameleons, with the ability to change their skin color (or other outer aspects) from one day to the next.

    Since a lot of homo- or bisexuals also are of the left, it’s hard to know where their pro-non-conformist, pro-do-your-own-thang politics begin and personal behavior ends. That is a major reason the only self-described gays I give the benefit of the doubt to are the ones who are socially-politically conservative or truly centrist—someone like Tammy Bruce, as one example.

    If surveys indicated 80 to 90 percent of gays were ideologically of the right instead of the left, I’d definitely approach the subject of DADT (among other issues) differently.

    That said, I think it is reasonable to point out that the percentage of gays in society makes the possibility of having a gay male roommate about one in ten and female 3 in one hundred.

    Earlier estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in society has been found to be greatly exaggerated, particularly based on surveys in Europe and Canada. Adjust for the number of “gays” who technically are bisexual and the percentage is even lower than pro-GLBT activists like to claim.

    Mark (411533)

  143. But when in combat I doubt many people are thinking too much about getting laid.
    Comment by VOR2 — 12/19/2010

    Since I have not been in the military, let alone combat, I can only make guesses. I think people can be “in combat” on a daily basis on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan without camping out in a foxhole with the enemy 50 yards away. So I imagine that when you’re in the relative safety of your base, pondering over the day’s events and anticipating tomorrow’s, there’s lots of time to think about feeling isolated, lonely, etc., and wanting some kind of relief. As a purely physiologic matter, the endorphin surge of sex is hard to match as a temporary relief.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  144. The DREAM Act was just a way to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens by first providing citizenship to their children. Extended families would follow in huge numbers. We cannot afford to import, educate and support more unskilled, non-English speaking workers when we have unemployment among American citizens at 9.8%.

    As for the bogus claims that they are essential to our economy, I ask, at what cost?

    If you look at a family of five with the father working construction and the mother as a part time daycare worker with a total family income of $35,000, they would pay zero income tax, burden our emergency rooms, and force our schools to hire language teachers. Even if they declared their income and paid social security, which I would doubt, the earned income tax credit would return more to them than they had paid into the system. Healthcare would cost $6,000 per year. Student annual per capita costs are $11,000 plus another $1,200 for English as a second language. Their net drain on services would exceed their total income. Don’t believe me, look at what is breaking the bank in California.

    The military is the democrats’ favorite social petri dish. We have had social actions since the 1970s and have been giving blacks, females and Latinos preferential promotions since before that. Let the volunteer force recruit the most qualified applicants rather than imposing another quota-based system.

    The notion that non-citizens – illegal aliens – have rights not afforded American citizens is beyond absurd. My grandson is off to college next year and if he must pay tuition as an out of state resident, how can anyone justify educating illegals at in state rates?

    If these people want to become American citizens, let them apply for resident alien status. There are hundreds of thousands already in line in front. This dream is another liberal nightmare.

    Arch (24f4f2)

  145. ________________________________________________

    This dream is another liberal nightmare.

    But just as long as one’s intentions are kind and humane, and compassionate and beautiful, nothing else matters!! It’s the thought that counts, right? So no wonder people on the left often feel they never have to apologize for anything.

    As for the issue of illegal immigration, various politicians need to stop wringing their hands about the “undocumented” already here and start enforcing the border. The former was already attempted in the 1980s with the Reagan Administration’s amnesty plan, while the latter has never been dealt with seriously—at least not since the 1950s, when the Eisenhower Administration initiated “Operation Wetback” (that designation alone is a hint of just how non-politically correct this society was over 50 years ago! From one extreme to the other).

    Stop putting the cart before the horse.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  146. MD’s right. Fraternization is rampant where it is available.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  147. The idea that this could allow a discharged person to bring suit is simply mind boggling to me.

    Why bring a suit when you can just download state secrets on your UBS drive and give it to some scumbag who’s drunk on his own narcissism?

    Watching Dickie Durbin today on the talkers made me ill once again. Remember, the children of illegals never do anything but enlist in the military as soon as legally possible. What an ass, as always.

    Dmac (498ece)

  148. BTW, Dickie’s next on the Tea Partier’s list to go here – look out, Dickie, big trouble ahead.

    Dmac (498ece)

  149. Durbin’s last whine was about detainee # 603, Mohammed Quahtani, the one who was kept out of the country, by an alert Customs agent, and hence didn’t join Flight 93, and turn the Capitol into
    a funeral pyre, with Durbin in it. Also, to show how ‘no good deed goes unpunished’ that same agent
    is receiving heat for some minor discrepancy

    narciso (6075d0)

  150. During WWII, many Filipinos guerrillas fought the Japanese, hid American downed pilots and served as scouts for Mac Arthur’s return. Our government rewarded these men with American citizenship. In 1976 while I was stationed at Clark AB, I went home on emergency leave. On the aircraft with me were several Filipinos in their 50s carrying large envelopes. These men had waited over 30 years for their turn. I think the Scouts and all the other allies who have contributed should be ahead of the gang bangers in Compton, CA.

    Arch (24f4f2)

  151. We were stringing the lights on the Christmas tree a few minutes ago, when PFC Pico handed me the strand that twinkles. I started singing, “Twinkle, twinkle, little tree, it’s a good thing they passed DA/DT.”

    That is absolutely awful; I hereby denounce myself! :)

    The denounced Dana (bd7e62)

  152. So I imagine that when you’re in the relative safety of your base, pondering over the day’s events and anticipating tomorrow’s, there’s lots of time to think about feeling isolated, lonely, etc., and wanting some kind of relief.

    I think you could make the same argument for not having men and women in combat together. Most people who have a loved one back home stay faithful and find ways to dealing with the stress. Some go to the gym, others put in 14-15 hour days, go back to the tent, sleep and do it all over again the next day.
    Ones who are inclined to stray will do so wherever and whatever orientation they are.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  153. 148.MD’s right. Fraternization is rampant where it is available.

    Comment by Dustin — 12/19/2010 @ 9:17 am

    Do you really think fraternization is “rampant”?
    I have seen it but not like it was wildfire out of control.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  154. But the biggest problem with rescinding DADT is that it actually opens the miltiary to no one who should be serving. I’ve served along side at least two excellent soldiers I concluded were homosexual. It was more important to them to be soldiers.

    The folks who won’t serve under DADT are the ones who put their sexuality first — to whom being gay is more important than serving. The ones who will stand in line at the recruiting station now are the ones who want to show “those bigots” and act in ways they know some straights find offensive.

    That kind of element in a platoon is one that good NCOs can deal with, until they are saddled by the inevitable political correctness that will come with this.

    DADT worked for all but those to whom sexualtiy was more important than service. Now, the entire military has made sexuality the priority. What could possibly go wrong?

    I find Robert C.J. Parry’s @ 4:03 comments vey compelling and of course that he currently serves adds even more heft to them.

    One thing that I’ve not yet read about is, in light of DADT, do we really know or have a good estimate about how many gays are and have been serving without their sexuality being an issue to them or experiencing the need to come out during their enlistment? Is it possible that number is not as low as the politics of the issue have led us to believe? I am curious because often during difficult issues, there is a tendency for each side to push their pov with over-the-top rhetoric and/or exaggerated claims (Everyone, all, none, and then mix it up with rights, freedom, guarantees, etc.)

    It does not seem unreasonable to believe that there are those whose pride in serving their country far outweighs their gay pride. Because of DADT, it would seem impossible to get accurate statistics.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  155. Dana,
    Soldiers are supposed to not screw around with prostitutes, other people’s spouses and the like. See laws on Trafficking in Persons and article 134. That behavior is against the rules. Yet there are many who continue to do that and serve.
    Except for those slips they serve honorably and with pride.
    Aren’t you supporting a separate unrealistic standard?

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  156. vor2 wrote:

    Except for those slips they serve honorably and with pride.

    Other than that, Mrs Kennedy, how was Dallas?

    The snarky Dana (bd7e62)

  157. I’m not supporting anything per se, vo2, what I am doing is thinking further about Parry’s comments. I don’t know how many serve without concern about their sexuality vs. how many do. We hear mostly from one side on this (obviously because of DADT).

    I understand there are prohibitions to specific behaviors, no matter the gender and/or with whom. I am speculating whether or not there is a lack of information (again, clearly because of DADT) available and that decisions are being made based on the loudest voices.

    This does not reflect a personal position on the issue. I am more interested in the getting-there decision that has been made.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  158. Dana,
    The point is that telling young people to control their libido is difficult at best. You question the commitment of people who want to serve as openly gay because you assume they have an agenda.
    No one can really know the measure of a soldier’s character until they have actually served.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  159. This does not reflect a personal position on the issue. I am more interested in the getting-there decision that has been made.

    The fact that your daughter is serving today has to do with the decision to allow women into the services some 40 plus years ago. Many of the arguments you see about gays were used about women. It was not perfect in the beginning but it worked out okay. You can go back further and use integration as an example. Same results today. I am quite sure that in a few years people will say the same about allowing openly gay people to serve.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  160. @ vor2,

    The point is that telling young people to control their libido is difficult at best. You question the commitment of people who want to serve as openly gay because you assume they have an agenda.
    No one can really know the measure of a soldier’s character until they have actually served.

    You are misreading my comment, which may or may not be inartfully expressed.

    My question had nothing to do with the libido of anyone, nor questioning the commitment of straights or gays, and I certainly do not assume anyone has an agenda.

    I do however agree completely with not knowing the measure of any soldier until having served.

    With that, I’ll try again: What I am curious about is how the decision has been made when there may very well be very limited information. Is it possible that the number of gays who have and are serving under DADT is comparable to the number who are not serving and/or voicing their desire to see it repealed? Because of DADT, how does one really know the numbers, and as Mr. Parry suggests, those who are already serving under DADT don’t place their sexuality as the priority but rather the opportunity to serve their country is their priority.

    I would like to hear your thoughts on Mr. Parry’s comments.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  161. Oh, I think I see the problem. vor2, there are 2 Danas commenting.

    One is simply Dana (me), the other always uses adjectives when he comments in order to differentiate and not confuse readers.

    (I’ve also been told I’m the prettier Dana.)

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  162. Gays have more votes than illegal aliens.

    I have no problem repealing the portion authorizing administrative discharges on the basis of sexual orientation.

    But it seems that the portion of the law authorizing administrative discharges on the basis of homosexual conduct have also been repealed. This is an important statutory tool for the military to use to separate servicepersons who engaged in homosexual conduct that involves force, public acts, prostitution, minors, acts that are otherwise prejudicial to discipline and good order, and acts that otherwise discredit the armed services.

    To be sure, there is no statutory prohibition against such discharges. But someone discharged for the reasons I have stated could go to court to reverse the discharge on the grounds it exceeded the military’s statutory authority.

    aphrael, that’s bizarre that the UCMJ is not amended.

    Why did it need to be amended?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  163. The adjective-unburdened Dana certainly is the prettier one! Me, I’m just happy when dogs don’t growl and kids don’t run away screaming when they see me. :(

    The uglier Dana (bd7e62)

  164. Michael E, under the UCMJ code provision I cited, it’s illegal for someone in the military to have oral or anal sex with anyone of any gender.

    This makes it difficult for gay soldiers to have sex, meaning the new rule is that celibate gays can serve. This is not a rule which will work in practice.

    From what I’ve been told, the sodomy provision of the UCMJ is already essentially only used in cases of harassment or fraternization, and it’s likely to remain that way because nobody wants to bring a case which would be used as a test of whether the provision is constitutional under Lawrence. But …. having a rule of the UCMJ which is regularly ignored is already a bad thing, and it’s not made better by a situation in which gay people can serve openly as long as they’re celibate or the command staff choose to ignore the letter of the law.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  165. The prettier Dana wrote:

    With that, I’ll try again: What I am curious about is how the decision has been made when there may very well be very limited information. Is it possible that the number of gays who have and are serving under DADT is comparable to the number who are not serving and/or voicing their desire to see it repealed?

    You might as well ask what percentage of our population is homosexual or bisexual. I’ve seen all sorts of numbers, and they vary pretty widely, but it always seems that the numbers are presented by people who want them to come out a certain way, to make a political point.

    The curious -- but not bi-curious -- Dana (bd7e62)

  166. Dana/adjective Dana,

    I don’t agree with Mr. Parry’s comments because they are assumptions he has nothing to back them up with.
    a. He can conclude two people might be homosexual but since he cannot ask doesn’t really know.
    b. His assertion

    The folks who won’t serve under DADT are the ones who put their sexuality first — to whom being gay is more important than serving. The ones who will stand in line at the recruiting station now are the ones who want to show “those bigots” and act in ways they know some straights find offensive.

    is an opinion and his expectation of the ones “standing in line” is what I call fear of the unknown.
    c.

    DADT worked for all but those to whom sexualtiy was more important than service. Now, the entire military has made sexuality the priority. What could possibly go wrong

    What is this based on besides his opinion? What if straight people were asked to affirm their commitment to service over their base desires?

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  167. Michael E, under the UCMJ code provision I cited, it’s illegal for someone in the military to have oral or anal sex with anyone of any gender.

    This makes it difficult for gay soldiers to have sex, meaning the new rule is that celibate gays can serve. This is not a rule which will work in practice.

    From what I’ve been told, the sodomy provision of the UCMJ is already essentially only used in cases of harassment or fraternization, and it’s likely to remain that way because nobody wants to bring a case which would be used as a test of whether the provision is constitutional under Lawrence.

    There had been a Lawrence based challenge against Article 125.

    In United States v. Marcum, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals heard a constitutional challenge against Article 125. They rejected a facial challenge, and authored a doctrine to determine if an Article 125 conviction is consistent with substantive due process as interpreted by Lawrence. Basically, if a conviction involves acts I mentioned in post 164, it is consistent with due process. Thus, Marcum effectively narrowed the scope of Article 125. As the Supreme Court denied cert, Marcum is binding on all courts-martial.

    However, Marcum does not bind U.S. district courts. Someone administratively discharged for conduct that would be prohibited under Marcum could still go before a judge to challenge the discharge, and the judge would not be bound by Marcum.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  168. What if straight people were asked to affirm their commitment to service over their base desires?

    If they were, they would have been legally required to answer.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  169. If they were, they would have been legally required to answer.

    So straight soldiers should be required to sign a statement affirming they will not engage in sexualy activity until legally married?
    What benefit does it provide to make us have a more effective cadre of warfighters?

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  170. So straight soldiers should be required to sign a statement affirming they will not engage in sexualy activity until legally married?

    I am not writing that they should, only that it would be within the military’s authority to do so.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  171. (I’ve also been told I’m the prettier Dana.)
    Who has a very accurate throwing arm.

    AD-RtR/OS! (347d01)

  172. “This is just like they did when they integrated the negroes”.

    The major difference was the existence of a draft during the black integration era. No question of any effect on enlistment or retention.

    Mike Giles (eb10d4)

  173. Blacks aren’t banned from donating blood because they have a higher incidence of HIV/HepC like the Homos..
    Don’t blame me, its the Red Cross’s Policy

    Frank Drackman (550e6d)

  174. Frank, do you have a link showing black blood donors are similar to gay blood donors in HIV or Hepatitis infection rates?

    No?

    Why not?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  175. Michael Ejercito (#169 above from 12/19/2010 @ 1:19 pm): Thanks for telling us about U.S. v. Marcum. For the benefit of others who might be interested in seeing how mightily the lower courts are having to struggle to figure out just what the hell Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas actually means, here are links to an html version and a .pdf version, both hosted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    It’s very, very hard to figure out just how broad or powerful Marcum is as a precedent. I agree that it probably controls in future cases involving possibly-consensual, possibly uninvited, but at any rate non-violent oral sex as performed by a male airman on a sleeping male subordinate from his chain of command while both were off-base and off-duty.

    But I’m pretty sure that any competent defense lawyer could make a powerful argument distinguishing Marcum — possibly to the point of persuading an appellate court of Marcum‘s complete inapplicability as a precedent — if I could come up with even slightly different facts from those that confronted Airman Marcus. In other words, I’d make a serious effort at arguing that the Marcum decision, by its own terms, doesn’t govern in a future case involving anal sex instead of oral sex; or if the defendant only received the oral sex and didn’t perform it; or if the defendant and the other person weren’t both in the military; or if the defendant and the other person were of equivalent rank; or if the defendant and the other person were both in the military but not in the same direct chain of command, with the defendant holding the superior rank.

    With due respect to Judge Baker, I don’t think his majority opinion in Marcum provided judges presiding over trials of article 125 sodomy charges with any more useful guidance than Justice Kennedy did in Lawrence. And Chief Judge Crawford’s partial concurrence doesn’t really contribute any clarity, but rather just more smoke and heat. In defense of the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, though, I don’t think any of the other federal courts of appeals, nor any of the state courts examining federal law, have done a better job of explaining just how broadly Lawrence should be read. When you start with the sort of dog’s breakfast Justice Kennedy and the libs delivered in Lawrence and try to apply that to even slightly different factual and legal settings, your resulting dish is going to still end up smelling and tasting like vomit no matter how diligently you try to massage or disguise it.

    Beldar (8b6816)

  176. Why ya gotta be like that, Frank?

    JD (07faa1)

  177. blood donations are similar to the military.

    A lot of people take offense at things designed for utility, because of urgent matters of life and death.

    Personally, I am not a fan of DADT, but like blood donation rules should be discussed on the solitary ground of effectiveness. Which it can be and is, but often not very well.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  178. vor2 wrote:

    So straight soldiers should be required to sign a statement affirming they will not engage in sexualy activity until legally married?
    What benefit does it provide to make us have a more effective cadre of warfighters?

    At least when it comes to security clearances, the government at least used to ask people about their sexual history in matters where blackmail was a possibility: did you cheat on your wife, etc. Whether that still happens is outside of my knowledge.

    The common sense Dana (bd7e62)

  179. At least when it comes to security clearances, the government at least used to ask people about their sexual history in matters where blackmail was a possibility: did you cheat on your wife, etc. Whether that still happens is outside of my knowledge

    The difference is that you can admit to multiple affairs to the investigators and that was not cause in and of by itself to have your clearance suspended or be kicked out of the service. You could even tell investigators you believe you had beend abducted by alients and could keep your clearance.

    vor2 (64b3f9)

  180. It’s very, very hard to figure out just how broad or powerful Marcum is as a precedent. I agree that it probably controls in future cases involving possibly-consensual, possibly uninvited, but at any rate non-violent oral sex as performed by a male airman on a sleeping male subordinate from his chain of command while both were off-base and off-duty.

    The Marcum decision identified three factors.

    First, was the conduct that the accused was found guilty of committing of a nature to bring it within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence? 539 U.S. at 578. Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  181. The point not touched on, when do the gay advancement quotas kick in?

    Gerald A (4773ea)

  182. “The point not touched on, when do the gay advancement quotas kick in?”

    Gerald A – When the Wise Latina takes notice?

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  183. This whole thing is aggressively stupid. The Dem congresscritters cannot help but try to make the military their little social experiment Petrie dish. DADT was a craptacular Dem policy. Good riddance.

    JD (07faa1)

  184. The response to sexual overatures in a combat area is likely to raise the casuaty rate. A high velocity round goes out the other side and no one can tell which weapon it came from. It will be reported as KIA and that will be the end of it.There will be no CSI, only a terse action report that will make sgt. joe fridays “just the facts ” look like war and peace/

    dunce (b89258)

  185. “Why ya gotta be like that, Frank?”

    JD – Non-Hispanic blacks used to have higher instances of Hep-C infection, but no longer, now below average according to the CDC. Incidence overall has declined by 90% since the 90s, but biggest factor is still intravenous drug use. Frank is just perpetuating the racial myth regarding Hep-C.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  186. I think you could make the same argument for not having men and women in combat together

    Well, we certainly make the same argument for not having men and women in the same living/showering quarters.

    No sane person, at least currently, thinks it is reasonable to put a naked man and a naked woman in the same shower stall. Most of the time “nothing would happen anyway” except it would usually be uncomfortable. This is because of the awareness of judging and being judged for physical attractiveness and the possibility of a physical encounter. If you put two people in close quarters where one might be physically attracted to the other, and the other has to deal with the unwanted attention, it just doesn’t seem like a good idea whether the two people are heterosexual or same sex with one being homosexual.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  187. Non-Hispanic blacks used to have higher instances of Hep-C infection, but no longer, now below average according to the CDC.

    Now why would non-Hispanic blacks have Hep-C infection rates lower than average? Do tattoo parlors that cater to blacks do a better job of sterilizing their equipment than those catering to whites?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  188. “Now why would non-Hispanic blacks have Hep-C infection rates lower than average?”

    MD in Philly – Cracked me up. Dunno.

    Go read for yourself. Asian Islanders and Alaskans are higher than average.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  189. Make that Alaskan Natives.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  190. Comment by Dustin — 12/19/2010 @ 3:48 pm
    The only thing I know of that comes close to this is a rule against accepting blood donations from people who have had sex with partners from Africa–that being due to the extremely high prevalence of AIDS among Africans, both hetero- and homosexual.

    kishnevi (f26f5d)

  191. VOR2:

    The homosexuality of the two soldiers in question was something of an open secret. One can only live with a rommate of the same gender, bring said roommate to family-oriented functions, and never have a date with a member of the opposite sex for so long before it becomes fairly obvious. I was not the only one who thought so, in either case.

    Let me clarify re: “DADT worked for all those to whom service was more important than sexuality.” DADT did not require anyone to affirm their commitment to service over “their base desires.” DADT had nothing to do with base desires. It had to do with expression of those desires. Big difference.

    The only reason for a person not to volunteer for the military under DADT is if it was more important for that person to let for those around him/her know they are gay than to serve. Period.

    The proof is in the fact that lots of gays serve, and continue to serve very well. Their sexuality is not an issue.

    The unmentioned story in all of this is the real cultural change that will have to come about in the military. When demeaning something (a new directive from higher, a soldier’s poor performance, even the other services), a homosexual reference/analogy/metaphor/ is probably the technique of choice a third of the time. “That new ROE is stupid” is probably heard just as often as “The new ROE is gay.” The Army Servie Ribbon, a rainbow-hued uniform decoration given to any soldier who completes basic traning is often derided by the Marines as “The Gay Pride Award.”

    I can’t wait for the Command Sergeants Major to begin their politically correct lectures and the 15-6s about command climate to start. That’s when there will be a serious anti-gay backlash, and then things will get ugly.

    This will have far-reaching effects to readiness in ways civilians can’t comprehend.

    Robert C. J. Parry (f27afb)

  192. This will have far-reaching effects to readiness in ways civilians can’t comprehend

    This is the type of sentiment heard about integration and letting women into the services.

    The proof is in the fact that lots of gays serve, and continue to serve very well. Their sexuality is not an issue.

    Yet they are expected to not practice that sexuality while serving – same standard is not applied to straights, married or single. You tie it to their commitment or lack thereof. I disagree.

    As for the slang you mentioned about the use of the word “gay” i’m sure the drill sergeants will come up with another word pretty quickly to make their point.

    I’ve been living, serving and working with military people since 1975. Most of that time was while in uniform. I have more confidence than you do that our troops will make the transition just fine, as they did with integration and women coming into the services.

    Comment by dunce — 12/19/2010 @ 6:59 pm

    I think you are being silly. Plenty of people don’t necessarily like one another for a variety of reasons but there is not widespread murder in the guise of combat.
    Give our military people credit for the professionalism they exhibit consistently.

    vor2 (8e6b90)

  193. A footnote of a thought.

    DADT is characterized as “not allowing gays to serve openly”, as if that was a change for the negative, correct? Isn’t it the case that actually don’t ask don’t tell made it more possible for a gay to be in the military, as long as they kept a low profile? (Granted, it seems from afar that some people went out of their way to cause problems for some gays.)

    If so, this is like the characterization of Bush’s Stem Cell Policy. One would have thought that embryonic stem cell research was going along just fine until Bush stopped it, when the reality was was that no federally funded embryonic stem cell research was being done with federal dollars under a moratorium placed under Clinton until the issue could be thought through. There too, an easing of restriction was portrayed as a “step backwards”.

    It is just hard to remember that most of the left has little concern for truth or principle, but rather arguing to get their way. (like Assange)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  194. Yes, MD in Philly, Clinton’s DADT policy liberalized the military’s policy on gay service members. A friend of mine called it “Don’t Ask Don’t be Fabulous”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  195. OK, now that DADT’s his-straw, its time to stop the bigotry & discrimination against Males with less than 2 testicles.
    Thats right, if your a male, and dont have 2 testicles, your disqualifed from military service.
    EVEN IF YOUR BORN THAT WAY!
    And not only do they ask on the induction physical paperwork, a Doctor LOOKS just to make sure.
    Its time our one and no balled American Males were allowed to serve there country.

    Frank “2 Balls” Drackman

    Frank Drackman (6d27fd)

  196. I’m sure Hillary would lend you one of hers, Frank.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  197. Tupac(shouldn’t it be “one pack”) and Hitler beat me to them……

    Frank Drackman (6d27fd)

  198. Thanks, SPQR.

    I wonder how much Orwellian speech Orwell observed and whether he thought he was giving a warning or a prediction.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  199. I think even Orwell would be surprised.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  200. Orwell, based his tale, on his experience with BBC, he saw IngSoc, Minitrue, just an extension of that view

    narciso (6075d0)

  201. Thank you, narciso

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  202. The Corner has a brief but interesting look at the rhetoric surrounding DADT (which I’ve been curious about re this thread).

    My award for schmaltziest lede of the year goes to the New York Times for kvelling in an editorial yesterday that “More than 14,000 soldiers lost their jobs and their dignity over the last 17 years because they were gay, but there will be no more victims of this injustice.” Can we have a little reality here, please?

    Certainly there have been some unjustified separations under the policy which came to known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (the case of the highly qualified Air Force pilot named Mike Almy, who was discharged after e-mails to his boyfriend were discovered on a work-related e-mail account, comes to mind). But a few years ago, Charles Moskos, the late military sociologist who drafted the DADT language, went back to study discharges under the policy. He found that about 80 percent were voluntary, meaning they had been initiated by the soldier.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  203. Notice to The Corner,

    Words such as “schmaltziest” are barely recognized by many of us, and “kvell” I’ve never heard of.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8812 secs.