December 22, 2010

"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie..."

"... or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love."

Says Barack Obama, signing the repeal of the odious Clinton-era legislation known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

It's shameful that it's taken so long, and I have previously commented on Obama's lackluster efforts in this area. It remains to be seen how well he will do truly implementing the end to discrimination against gay people in the military, but today's signing is a step along the way, and it deserves acknowledgment.
The law will not actually change until the Pentagon certifies to Congress that the military has met several conditions, including education and training programs for the troops.

"In the coming days, we will begin the process laid out by this law" to implement the repeal, Obama said. Meanwhile, he cautioned, "the old policy remains in effect." But he pledged that all the service chiefs are "committed to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently," and he vowed, "We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done."
I'll be watching those feet.

192 comments:

Lincolntf said...

What would've happened if the 19th Amendment was ratified and no women showed up at the polls?
Will thousands of heretofore discriminated against gays flock to Recruiting offices around the country? Or will they just pick another random Lefty cause and cynically equate it to a "human right".

Scott M said...

including education and training programs for the troops.

...it begins. Let's get it out of the way. I've got no problem with gays serving openly in the military as long as enlisted cohabitation can be dealt with realistically, fairly, and without effecting the military's mission in any negative way. Frankly, I don't see how that's possible right now, but that's exactly my opinion on the matter.

Two things come to mind that I have seen nobody else talking about. First, what's the method of correction for this. Second, how will the DoD deal with marriage, on-base housing, and Tricare?

In the case of the first, I see a great deal of legislation and "programs" enacted without answering the simple question..."what are you going to do if it doesn't work?". If, God forbid, the military is negatively effected by this move (not saying it will be, just being an adult and saying, what-if) what are the proponents' plans to change it? Education and training? I thought the military's budget was already bloated...

Second. People can get married on post. People cannot get, as far as I know, divorced on post. There are federal installations in all 57 states. Thus, if a gay marriage attempts to dissolve inside a state that doesn't recognize SSM, we're going to have a problem, aren't we?

Hmm...could it be that the latter is what they're really after? Tin foil hat, just a bit, I know, but, again, what-if?

Methadras said...

Now that DADT is repealed, I wonder what the homosexual political activist bloc ask for now?

wv = delied = that's an interesting one. Palin?

franglo said...

It's absolutely shameful that the thing he said he would do was done. How dare he??? If he can't snap his fingers and interpose himself brutally into a hidebound military culture, or make imperious demands of a military sapped by a decade of active combat, then he has truly made a mockery of his duties as commander in chief. We should watch him and make sure everything that's done is seen in the poorest possible light, so we can elect those gay-loving Republicans at the earliest possibility. It's not Bush's fault that DADT stayed in place for 8 years, or Republicans' fault for opposing allowing gays to serve openly in the first place and forcing Clinton to craft the DADT compromise in the first place.

**(&(*@#@$%!

franglo said...

Scott M. Gays cohabit with straights... in combat... RIGHT NOW.

rhhardin said...

the odious Clinton-era legislation known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Odious why?

chuckR said...

re:foot-dragging

Harry Truman ordered integration of the Armed Forces, et voila, it happened. I'll take the bet the contemporary military will move expeditiously.

Richard Dolan said...

With O, everyone has learned by now that you should pay attention to what he does and ignore what he says.

SMGalbraith said...

Gays cohabit with straights... in combat... RIGHT NOW.

Yes, but they did in, just to choose a year off the top of my head, 1950 as well.

But anyone recommending changing the code of conduct and allowing gays in the military at that time would have recognized that it would be completely untenable.

The issue is not the rights of gay Americans: it's the effectiveness of the armed forces in the middle of two wars.

Can we make this change or will it disrupt our war-making ability?

I'm agnostic: if we can do it, do it; if we can't, I'm sorry but the rights of gay Americans are trumped.

Apparently the military says we can so let's do it.

AllenS said...

"... or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love."

Tell me, Barack, just how much did Bradley Manning love his country?

EDH said...

"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie... or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love."

Except, of course, in the showers.

Rialby said...

And here some the quotas.

Chuck Schumer, 2014: General, can you explain to me why, when we've asked you repeatedly, do you continue to deny that you are discriminating against gays when it's clear that gays are not being promoted at the same rate as non-gays?

(Sorry to be so long-winded but I was doing my best Schumer)

The Ghost said...

franglo ...

not openly gay soliders ...

do you co-habitate with your gay co-workers today ? In the same non-private conditions that enlisted troops live in ?

The issue is not about gays being capable of doing the work, its about the living arrangements and as long as the sevices can manage seperate quarters then this should go well ...

Jason (the commenter) said...

rhhardin: Odious why?

It required chastity and a complete ban on romantic involvement in both public and private life.

traditionalguy said...

Good for the Congress persons who passed the amendment to remove proscriptions of gays. Times have changed. Obama signed it too, but he never was the reason that it passed. His real fight has always been the CO2 Grand Hoax and capturing all American energy sources usage as a control tool. Obama is still 100% behind that attack on every living American whether they are gay, straight or whatever.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Showers, cohabitation, et cetera with anybody of any sexual orientation is stressful. How do you deal with it? You just don't think about it. And that's all you have to do when you do those things with a gay person.

Ann Althouse said...

"Odious why?"

People were allowed to serve, but expected to serve with a secret and thrown out if the secret happened to be divulged. That's a terrible way to treat members of the armed services.

The rules about acting out sexually should just be equal for everyone, part of order and discipline. It shouldn't be that some people are freer than others to talk about their life experiences and loved ones.

tim maguire said...

All the blathering of certain commenters to your various gay posts notwithstanding, this is not a left-right issue. It is a young-old issue. To people under the age of about 40 gay rights fall under "of course, why are we even talking about it?"

Of course gays should be allowed to marry, of course they should be allowed to serve in the military. Young conservatives believe that as surely as young liberals.

Since most soldiers are under 40, there's no reason to doubt what every knowledgeable person already says--this is, and should be treated as, a non-issue.

Will gays flock to the enlistment boards? Thousands will, and the thousands who already did no longer have to lie about who and what they are. And their fellow soldiers no longer have to lie about the fact that they already know and don't care.

donttread2010 said...

Does anyone find any irony in this? Odious? Clinton?

It really doesn't change anything, except as Rialby points out, for the Chuck Schumers of the world. It gives folks like he, other lefties and the 'No Labels' crowd a reason to bitch and moan (yet another demon identified!) about anything that helps them keep their sorry asses in office.

EDH said...

It required chastity and a complete ban on romantic involvement in both public and private life.

Did it really?

Roger J. said...

Not a big deal and the impact on the military will be negligible--

the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) still applies, unless, of course, Congress wishes to modify the sanctions against sodomy.

The Drill SGT said...

Rialby said...
And here some the quotas.

Chuck Schumer, 2014: General, can you explain to me why, when we've asked you repeatedly, do you continue to deny that you are discriminating against gays when it's clear that gays are not being promoted at the same rate as non-gays?


expect the circular quota argument as well.

Senator: You aren't promoting gays in proportion to their share of the population!!

General: we did a survey and only 5 soldiers said they were gay

Senator, but the gay lobby says the number is 50,000,(e.g. 10%), the rest of them are in the closet, because you wont promote them.

General, Senator, to get you off my case, I'd promote all the little xxxx if I just knew who they were!

SMGalbraith said...

You just don't think about it. And that's all you have to do when you do those things with a gay person

Yes, but gay people are just as good or bad, ethical or unethical as straight people. There are good gay men and bad gay men. Just as there are good straight men and bad straight men (good in terms of ethics and professionalism).

And the temptation (for lack of a better word) will be too much for some gay people. Just as it would be for me if I showered/lived with attractive women.

So, what happens when they fail to live by that code? What will be the result of an inappropriate act? How will that affect the morale of a unit?

These are real tough issues to deal with. And, I think, legitimate ones to raise.

The military says they can handle them. If so - and I take them at their word - then we repeal the law.

But, sorry, if the military says that the repeal would be too disruptive, that it couldn't be undertaken, then I'd have to oppose the repeal.

The rights of gay Americans - or straight ones for that matter - are secondary to the need of a effective military.

The Drill SGT said...

BTW: You are going to need that more conserative GOP House in 2011 if you want to change Article 125

Jason (the commenter) said...

EDH: Did it really?

Yes, any evidence of any of those things, from anyone, was grounds for dismissal.

donttread2010 said...

@tim maguire

"Of course gays should be allowed to marry,"

Really? I know gays that don't believe that, and think the gays that do should leave traditional 'marriage' to heteros.

How about we call it a 'partnership'?

I do agree in terms of the military, it should be a non-issue and treated the same way as hetero relations would be prohibited. Period.

SMGalbraith said...

People were allowed to serve, but expected to serve with a secret and thrown out if the secret happened to be divulged. That's a terrible way to treat members of the armed services.

But Althouse, that was done as a compromise. It had to be made because the evidence was that at that time allowing openly gay men and women was simply not possible. It would be too disruptive.

So in an attempt to reach a middle ground, that was worked out.

Gay men and women had the choice of not joining the military if these demands were excessive.

That's hardly odious. That was reality.

Since the nation has changed and the military now says this is possible, we can now change the law.

rhhardin said...

People were allowed to serve, but expected to serve with a secret and thrown out if the secret happened to be divulged.

It depends on acting, not secrecy.

If you don't like the soldier's life, don't join.

You won't see me on the writing staff of women's magazines, either.

I don't see it as even unreasonable, let alone odious.

The rights gays already have are the rights of all Americans.

Making it a PC interest group is a fashion statement, not a rights issue.

TWM said...

This social experiment will not end well for the military. Nor for gays serving in the military. I know it makes gays and those who support this nonsense feel good about themselves, but that's just a fact.

But it's done so no sense worrying over it anymore.

Jason (the commenter) said...

rhhardin: It depends on acting, not secrecy.

No, it depended entirely on secrecy. Someone who was flamboyant would have been completely safe as long as there was no evidence of homosexual relations. Your "perfect actor" could have been thrown out on the word of an ex or even an eavesdropping stranger.

Jason (the commenter) said...

TWM: This social experiment will not end well for the military.

DADT was the social experiment. Being gay isn't even interesting in real life in most places, let alone something you would get fired for.

jr565 said...

Barack said:
"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie..."

"... or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love."

Yet adulterers still have to look over their shoulders and lie. Why does the army still have such a draconian code of conduct. Couldn't adulterers still be able to do their jobs despite having problems at home?

SMGalbraith said...

Gay soldiers bringing their dates to military balls and dances and events?

As a 47 year old, I couldn't care less.

As a 20 year old, I'm not sure.

Going to cause problems, that's for sure.

Roger J. said...

the whole exercise was ridiculous to start from the time the blow job in chief, bill clinton, did the thing as a sop to the gays.

If I were still a commander, I could bring chargers against heteros for anal intercourse or straights for bestiality. Unless, as drill sgt points out, article 125 still applies: in short, no butt fucking for any one.

can't wait to see this one debated.

Oh, and please pardon the injudicious language--I did spend 25 years in the cavalry.

sethfontana said...

Interesting times we are living in. The moral argument's dead; nobody uses it anymore. The operative word is always 'postmodernism'. But whatever.

==========

Off topic: I'm listening to traditional Spanish Christmas songs right now (I'm Spanish, I guess that explains my broken English). These songs speak about Holy Mary Mother of God and these things. I don't know why I mention it...

rhhardin said...

No, it depended entirely on secrecy. Someone who was flamboyant would have been completely safe as long as there was no evidence of homosexual relations.

That's what I said, only you're calling it secrecy and I'm calling it action.

EDH said...

It shouldn't be that some people are freer than others to talk about their life experiences and loved ones.

You could list a thousand "shouldn't be's" that apply to the restrictions on individual freedoms imposed by military life.

The asymmetry of treatment between those of different sexual orientations is occasioned by the close quarter necessity in certain segments of the armed forces.

Sex-segregation of living arrangements addresses the issues of affinity among heterosexuals, whereas no permutation in living arrangements can similarly address the issue with respect to those with a same-sex orientation.

Hagar said...

The UCMJ has some very strict rules about inappropriate behavior and "fraternization," particularly when opposite sexes are involved. Will those rules still hold when the "opposite sex" really is of the "same sex"?

How does this square with the current idea that "kissing my buddy" is a civil rights issue?

I don't think the Professor has much of an idea of what life in the military is like.

jr565 said...

tranglo wrote:
Scott M. Gays cohabit with straights... in combat... RIGHT NOW.

So then why do we have to change DADT?
The cohabitation issue jumps up here, in the sense that if the argument is that gays can't serve openly then even if they are ogling guys, they have to do it on the downlow and not give away their identities. Whereas, when they serve openly if they are ogling guys in the latrine (or that is the impression)it reveals the whole issue because again, now that the gay soldier is openly gay, people who may have been ogled but didn't know the person ogling them was gay, will now know, or will determine that the gay guy is ogling them (even if in fact he isn't).
I can't figure out how you would ever square that circle. bot

Roger J. said...

There never was a formal restriction on gay soldieers serving. The UCMJ does not proscribe sexual orientation. It does however, proscribe sexual activity in accordance with article 125 (and the elastic clause of the UCMJ--good order an and discipline). As long as gay and straights keep their peckers and pussies under control, not a problem.

Cedarford said...

chuckR said...
re:foot-dragging

Harry Truman ordered integration of the Armed Forces, et voila, it happened. I'll take the bet the contemporary military will move expeditiously.

===============
Different era.
Truman's military was a conscript one of forcefully emplaced in the military draftees, coupled with Lifers and officers doing obligated service in return for Service academy and ROTC funded educations.

Truman could have waved his wand and told all the troops to dress in pink tutus on Fridays and all female soldiers to get on all 4s and bark like dogs in lieu of wearing a tutu like the men...and have had absolutely no impact on staffing.

Not today. People I know that have ties still to AF and Army staffing expect a minimal, if that, increase in gays who will still be a very small factor (2% or less other than female NCOs..). They are unsure about the "gay deterrent effect" on high volunteering rural white, hispanic, religious black, and native American populations.

"As long as the economy is still Bush-Obama bad, we should be OK until gay marriage is rammed down our throats, too."

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

The repeal of DADT left intact the DOMA. All this speculation about how the military will deal with gay marriage post repeat of DADT is either badly confused or else intended to cause confusion on the part of others. (I've heard people whom I know to know better nevertheless advance these speculations.)

I frankly don't understand why the troops need training or education, though. This should be only about the GOVERNMENT ceasing to categorize service members based on sexual preference. The whole point isn't to give gays special rights or protections. It's to take sexual preference out of the mix, so that in any context, when someone says, "But hey, that soldier is gay," the response is, "So what?" The repeal of DADT doesn't create a constitutional requirement that we shift even to a Seinfeldian "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

franglo said...

The twisted hand-wringing about "cohabitation" and showering together is a symptom of repression and denial. It's about dark, secret fantasies, projection, and inability to deal openly with sexuality.

The younger generations have been awash in filth and pornography and raw portrayals of sex since they were small. What has happened is that instead of everyone becoming a decadent hell demon as the church fathers would have us believe, sex has become a bit banal, an entertainment, something to amuse. But not a big deal. That's the real generation gap. It's not a big deal. Sample dialogue among enlisted men:

"Hey dude, now that DADT is gone I'm gonna need soap on a rope around you, homo."
"Dude, I wouldn't come near your stank ass with Bea Arthur's dick, much less my own"

Beldar said...

I meant "post-repeal," obviously, not "post-repeat." Sorry.

WV: "freac," one obsessed with making tiny corrections to one's own written output. (Damn, shouldn't that have been "freak"? Not unless I wanted my comment rejected.)

Bender said...

"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie..."

And if you don't embrace the new truth, then be quiet about it or simple get the hell out of the military.

So, will there be a don't ask, don't tell policy for those who oppose such militant gay rightsism?

Apparently not, not if they are going to have re-education camps in order to get the minds of the troops right, so that they think the right things and say the right things.

Say "turnaround's a bitch" all you want, here come the new oppression.

Roger J. said...

Beldar: not a problem. Love your posts, even if you are a lawyer--thank gaia you arent a journalist.

pm317 said...

signing the repeal of the odious Clinton-era legislation

You say this again without saying that Clinton tried to do the right thing. Why don't you talk about the role the homophobe republicans played when he tried to do the right thing? For the record, Obama didn't lift a finger to repeal this either. There are still questions about what this repeal does. Do they now go back to what it was before before DADT which would be worse? You and your fucking Clinton hate.

SMGalbraith said...

The twisted hand-wringing about "cohabitation" and showering together is a symptom of repression and denial. It's about dark, secret fantasies, projection, and inability to deal openly with sexuality.

Sure on some part. But those others who view gay people as just like us straight people (ethically that is) recognize it as a serious issue to raise.

This isn't a game. It's real life and involves serious consequences.

To dismiss those legitimate questions or to characterize them as symbols of repressed homosexual desires or some other psychobabble does the discussion a disservice.

But hey, go for it.

Moose said...

Sorry. Taking credit for repealing DADT is a whoopee shit moment. A non-issue in my eyes that could have been avoided nearly 20 years ago that benefits a small percentage of the population for service that most people avoid at all costs.

Next token issue?

Beldar said...

Hagar (12/22/10 4:42 PM): Care to quote, or better yet give us a link to, any provision of the UCMJ on fraternization or inappropriate behavior which are "especially [strict] when opposite sexes are involved"?

I'm not an expert in military law, but I've read bits and pieces of the UCMJ -- for example, article 125, discussed elsewhere in these comments -- and your description is contrary to what I've seen.

Could you be describing, instead, your perception of how the UMCJ has traditionally been administered, rather than what its provisions actually say?

Jason (the commenter) said...

rhhardin: That's what I said, only you're calling it secrecy and I'm calling it action.

No, you're calling it "action", where before you called it "acting".

And as far as definitions go, once DADT is no longer enforced, we can call asking for its return "disruptive to the military's mission".

Jenner said...

Chastity is a virtue.

dbp said...

"... or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love."

Why would they need to look over their shoulders? To make sure nobody sneaks-up on them while they are doing something "gay"? Like what? Reading Vogue if a man or Popular Mechanics if a woman?

vw outsi I kid you not.

Roger J. said...

PM whatever number: Clinton would have no idea what the right thing to do was--he was paying off the gay lobby--and, in the event, I don't think the outcome was bad irrespective of the intent. So clinton hate has nothing to do with it (and if I were you I would keep your daughter away from him, but thats just me)

Jenner said...

UCMJ articles 133 and 134 will cover conduct unbecoming and threats to good order and discipline.

dbp said...

As a former Marine, I think they will muddle through this just like everything else.

The prime beneficiary will be women (straight and lesbian) who can now fearlessly ward-off unwanted male advances by saying they are gay.

Hagar said...

@Beldar,

You are probably right, and it was a long time ago, but we were advised to be very careful about language and behavior when any female military personnel was around, and they gave a strong impression that they meant it.

SMGalbraith said...

UCMJ articles 133 and 134 will cover conduct unbecoming and threats to good order and discipline.

And, for example, a situation where two gay soldiers in a unit of 12 in some outpost in Afghanistan who violate the code can be easily handled?

They'll just be replaced. No consequences?

I favor the repeal but let's be serious here: this is going to cause problems.

It's not like a college dorm or even workplace.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

...but today's signing is a step along the way, and it deserves acknowledgment.

I don't think your support for this non-GOP led legislation was tepid or qualified enough. Can you water it down a little more? Thanks.

SMGalbraith said...

As a former Marine, I think they will muddle through this just like everything else.

Good point. Muddle through but there will be painful episodes (so to speak).

Some proponents seemingly don't care. The rights of gay Americans trump everything else and if problems occur, they can blame gay hysteria or homophobia or something else.

They may be right but it's not much solace to a unit that's had it's effectiveness destroyed.

Once again: I favor repeal but to think this won't be difficult or to dismiss any problems as simply homophobia isn't realistic.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"Let us hope this works out better for the Marine Corps than it did for the Catholic Church.


Remarkable. The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military.

Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth? Does justice demand it? Was there a national clamor for it?

No. It is being imposed from above by people, few of whom have ever served or seen combat, but all of whom are aware of the power of the homosexual rights lobby."

Yup....

http://bit.ly/eUw5AH

Indigo Red said...

If no one was asking and no one was tell, where does Obama get "tens of thousands of Americans"? Noboby knows how many homosexuals are serving the nation in uniform. For all anyone knows it could be simply tens or maybe all of them. We won't know until asked and told, and then the question should be, "What's it to you?" Also, not all those in uniform are Americans. Many are foreign nationals who may be homosexual or don't they count. Obama makes too many assumptions.

Now, how about allowing the handicapped the same ability to serve in uniform too. I can type and use a joystick, why can't I pilot drone or launch missiles?

Hagar said...

Beldar,
I don't think I actually saw any WAC's between basic training and returning to this country for discharge, so for me it was mainly hypothetical, but haven't I every now and then since read a note in the papers about Col. X being court martialed and dismissed for inappropriate behavior with a female subordinate?

I still think this legislation will cause more problems and misery than it will alleviate.

SMGalbraith said...

Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth?

Because the evidence indicates that we can, that the military can make the adjustments with no signficant harm done to its effectiveness.

And because we can do this, it makes no sense not to use the great abilities that gay and lesbian men and women can provide our military with.

Why keep them out if (1) they can help us and they're patriots who wish to serve and (2) the military won't be substantially harmed by the changes?

The benefits, to me, outweight whatever costs may accure.

Jenner said...

Just saying -- article 125 is not the only article that applies to unacceptable behavior. 133 and 134 can sometimes cover whatever the commander wants them to cover. This can cut both ways.

Jay said...

Of course nobody ever asked anyone to "live a lie"

The re-enlistment rate will drop. I wonder if Ann and these other leftists will be talking about that.

Jay said...

the evidence indicates that we can,

You don't have any "evidence"

Jay said...

franglo said...

The twisted hand-wringing about "cohabitation" and showering together is a symptom of repression and denial. It's about dark, secret fantasies, projection, and inability to deal openly with sexuality.


Yes, because of course there is no cohabitation and showering together in the military.

You win: you've made the most inane post of the day.

Big Mike said...

I'll be watching those feet.

And I'll be watching to see if this has any effect on enlistments.

I'm inclined to think this was never anything more than a bunch of gay activists running around and causing trouble. It's perfectly fair to assume that there will be something else that absolutely has to be done as a fundamental human right.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jay: The re-enlistment rate will drop. I wonder if Ann and these other leftists will be talking about that.

Since we need to make massive cuts to our military, that probably is a good thing. And having the people who don't work well in a team volunteer to leave is a blessing.

Cedarford said...

Beldar said...
The repeal of DADT left intact the DOMA. All this speculation about how the military will deal with gay marriage post repeat of DADT is either badly confused or else intended to cause confusion on the part of others
=================
My take?

1. Repealing DADT is part and parcel of the larger agenda of ending DOMA.
2. Since the military (somewhat uniquely in our society) greatly rewards married people with pay and benefits single soldiers are denied, expect immediate efforts to get the money and allowances of BAS, off base housing pay, family separation pay and full health and edication benefits for gay partners.
3. Gay activists will use once established military gay husband and husband and gay wife and wife arguments that the "heroes who serve" must have their blessed connubials honored in all 50 states and all US territories by force of law and extend the gay heroes benefits in law in all relevant civilian spheres any place gay wedding beneficiaries happen to be.
4. DOMA is ended.

Cedarford said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Jay: The re-enlistment rate will drop. I wonder if Ann and these other leftists will be talking about that.

Since we need to make massive cuts to our military, that probably is a good thing. And having the people who don't work well in a team volunteer to leave is a blessing.
==============
I expect that part of that equation, Jason the Commentor, is that Queebos like Bradley Manning who don't work well in a team will be "counseled" by team players that they best volunteer to leave.

Jenner said...

Since we need to make massive cuts to our military, that probably is a good thing.

The truth will out.

Jay said...

And having the people who don't work well in a team volunteer to leave is a blessing.

Hysterical.

Yes, I think the military should look forward to the loss of the brain power working through a global war and multiple deployments.

All so you, silly ignorant liberal who has never been in the military, can feel good inside.

The Drill SGT said...

Beldar said...
Hagar (12/22/10 4:42 PM): Care to quote, or better yet give us a link to, any provision of the UCMJ on fraternization or inappropriate behavior which are "especially [strict] when opposite sexes are involved"?


once upon a time (meaning I don't know if things are still this way)

- adultery (article 134-2) is (was a big deal

- living with somebody was a courtmartial offense (article 134-5 Cohabitation)

- sex with someone not your spouse was chargeable under 133 and 134-0

- fraternization with an enlisted person (article 134-23)

and yes, officers were very careful about when and where they had relations with persons, not their spouse...

PS: Roger, beyond article 125, lots of Lesbians got charged with 134 as instead, since the JAG had a hard time proving the penetration element of 125.

Jay said...

Since we need to make massive cuts to our military, that probably is a good thing.


Really?

We "need to" because you say so?

Where is Obama going to get all those troops to go to Afghanistan then?

Oh, you're not coherent.

Never mind.

Jay said...

And having the people who don't work well in a team volunteer to leave is a blessing.

Alternatively, since gays are a tiny, tiny fraction of the military, we could simply not admit them.

Look, you're an idiot.
Stop while you're behind.

Stephen said...

You seem tougher on Obama than on those who opposed repeal. How about some vigorous condemnation of the active opponents,already, by name, as they so richly deserve.

And how about some recognition, as a con law professor who knows about "the weakest branch," that there is a lot to be said for a result achieved through the political process (after extensive consultation with and active involvement by senior uniformed military) in terms of legitimacy and durability.

The Drill SGT said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
And having the people who don't work well in a team volunteer to leave is a blessing.


if it were true (and it isnt) that there would be a magical influx of qualified and dedicated out gay troops, it might start to balance out the loss of some number of existing hetero troops that are going to leave or get effectively fired because they have trouble with this policy. You understand of course that our force is more rural, more religious, and more conservative than the average cohort. and the front line troops, more white.

repeal of DADT may be a win for human rights, but it will have a net short term (and perhaps longer term) loss for readiness/effectiveness.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jay: All so you, silly ignorant liberal who has never been in the military...

You forgot "openly gay", which makes the part about never having been in the military seem a little odd.

"How can the people who were never allowed to be in the military complain about never having been allowed in the military?"

We're just the people to complain!

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Oh boy! The hominid going by the name "Jay" has articulated a very well-reasoned stance on the matter. I'm so happy!

Maybe he will tell us of the 65,000 jobs lost at GM!

Jenner said...

You all do realize that the unit cohesion argument was the only valid one for keeping DADT?

With that disregarded, there is no further justification for restricting women from combat units, so long as they meet the same physical requirements as males. There are a fair number of women who will be able to do so.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Yes, I think the military should look forward to the loss of the brain power working through a global war and multiple deployments.

Maybe Jimbob Jay is talking about all the Arabic translators we just had to kick out of the service for not being disposed to "proper" piece of tail. That was a great boon to our mission, I'm sure.

knox said...

Sounds like some people think this will be a Total Disaster!! While others think it's The Right Thing To Do, and the ramifications will be minimal.

The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, depending on the individuals involved.

Obnoxious gay agitators--the most likely group who would cause trouble (and who have also created the biggest hurdles for gay rights, imo)--are not likely to join the military, so there's that, at least.

Alcuria said...

The rules about acting out sexually should just be equal for everyone, part of order and discipline. It shouldn't be that some people are freer than others to talk about their life experiences and loved ones.

I hope that people of whichever sexual orientation are a bit discriminating on what they discuss. I do believe there's a tendency for people to discuss intimate details of their lives with whomever happens to be present at the moment. There's a time and place for everything and that's also the case in the military.

Tangentially , a word about some of the military personnel "outed" during DADT especially in the last several years. During the last couple of weeks, I have seen mention of several of these military folks being proficient in Arabic who came out and were discharged, etc.

Many of these folks decided to come out on their own. And in that way, they subjugated their military obligation and the readiness of their unit to their sexuality.

They knew the rules when they received their commission or enlisted. I find their conduct incredibly selfish and a window into their character.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jay: We "need to" because you say so?

Look at our budget deficit. Look at out economy's growth rate.

LarsPorsena said...

Flirtation Walk at West Point will have a whole different look ten years from now.

jr565 said...

Conservative for better dental hygiene wrote;
Maybe Jimbob Jay is talking about all the Arabic translators we just had to kick out of the service for not being disposed to "proper" piece of tail. That was a great boon to our mission, I'm sure.
Ok, but the military could kick people out for a lot of reasons, many that don't involve you being gay. Like if you act in a manner unbecoming an officer (like say you cheat on your wife). Yet, what if you are a great translator? Are you up in arms that they are kicking out great translators who cheat on their wives? Is that a great boon to our mission?

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

We need more control over people's sexuality!!!

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Ok, but the military could kick people out for a lot of reasons, many that don't involve you being gay. Like if you act in a manner unbecoming an officer (like say you cheat on your wife). Yet, what if you are a great translator?

The number of Arabic translators post-9/11 has been abysmal, and a significant chunk of that low rate was due to DADT. At some point people should stop being robotic rule-making machines and ask themselves if prioritizing and thinking of the importance of the mission is an important enough reason for others to be entitled to their liberty, integrity and other petty needs that in no way impact their military service.

SMGalbraith said...

We need more control over people's sexuality!!!

That's about the only matter that many on the left don't want to control.

Jason (the commenter) said...

the Drill SGT: if it were true (and it isnt) that there would be a magical influx of qualified and dedicated out gay troops

I'm not saying that. People are replaceable, especially in the military.

They need people they can train who will work with anybody. People who will be cogs in the machine. The military will take care of getting them any skills they need.

If there is an outflux of personnel, that will be short-term. Long-term the military will be stronger. People who aren't as suited to being cogs will be replaced by others who are better suited to being cogs.

jr565 said...

franglo wrote:
But not a big deal. That's the real generation gap. It's not a big deal. Sample dialogue among enlisted men:

"Hey dude, now that DADT is gone I'm gonna need soap on a rope around you, homo."
"Dude, I wouldn't come near your stank ass with Bea Arthur's dick, much less my own"

So then surely women won't mind guys showering with them and saying similar things right? There wont be any calls for sexual harrasment lawsuits will there?
If gays can cop a look straights should be able to too. It's all banal anyway

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Peepees and pussies don't bother us the way they do you, Galbraith. Especially when they belong to, you know, other people.

Lack of extreme inequality, OTOH, I know that really gets under your skin. Apparently the society has struck a bargain.

jr565 said...

Jason (the commenter) wrote:
If there is an outflux of personnel, that will be short-term. Long-term the military will be stronger. People who aren't as suited to being cogs will be replaced by others who are better suited to being cogs.

If someone is supposed to just shut up and serve, then aren't those demanding that they be able to serve in the military on their terms examples of people who aren't very good cogs in the machine? Surely one or two of those translators who was gay noticed the Don't Ask Don't Tell sign on the door. If they were simply cogs in a machine, they woudl simply do their jobs and then go home. Namely translate, and keep their sex lives out of the conversation. What does the fact that they are gay bring to their ability to translate Farsi?

Jenner said...

People who aren't as suited to being cogs will be replaced by others who are better suited to being cogs.

This is very enlightening as to what you think about members of the military.

SMGalbraith said...

Peepees and pussies don't bother us the way they do you, Galbraith. Especially when they belong to, you know, other people.

If you've read my posts - or had an adult explain them to you - you'll see that I have no concern about your little peepee.

Or anyone elses.

I support the repeal but recognize that there will be difficulties.

Difficulties that only ideologues or fanatics can dismiss.

peter hoh said...

Methadras wants to know what's next.

Barney Frank spills the beans.

Jason (the commenter) said...

jr565: If someone is supposed to just shut up and serve, then aren't those demanding that they be able to serve in the military on their terms examples of people who aren't very good cogs in the machine?

I agree. Of course, as many here have pointed out, there are only a small percentage of soldiers who are gay. So the military has been excluding a few less than ideal gay soldiers, while keeping a large number of less than ideal straight soldiers. Reversing this policy makes sense.

AJ Lynch said...

I can imagine the topics of conversation at the typical liberal cocktail party: DADT, horrible Faux News, did you know Alexander The Great was gay, Repubs are racist hence they opposed the Dream Act, Obama is the Comeback Kid, public schools are underfunded, gay marriage, Arabic translators, campaign finance reform, how's your Prius, did you put up a Winter Solstice tree this year, damn global warming deniers, damn social security lockbox deniers,even NPR denied Soc Sec lockbox, your own kid's private school, Michele Obama is right about feds policing what kids eat.

I'd have to kill myself before I'd listen to one minute of those librul dimwits.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Uhhhhh! Liberty with integrity is hard!

Geez, Galbraith. For someone who claims to be unconcerned with my member you sure sound interested in its size.

I'm sure the "kinks" in the new freedom policy will be worked out. I haven't read anyone supporting repeal tell another supporter of repeal that any new issues should be ignored.

Jason said...

I, for one, welcome our new homosexual overlords!

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

I'm sure you do, Jason.

wv: recoc. lol.

Beldar said...

@ The Drill Sgt, good friend (12/22/10 5:54 PM): I don't at all dispute the obvious fact that the UCMJ contains some serious prohibitions and penalties for fraternization and misconduct.

What I thought was incorrect was the suggestion that the UCMJ's express terms treat opposite-sex and same-sex matters differently, or that it's especially strict in its treatment when opposite sexes are involved.

And @ Hagar (12/22/10 5:16 PM): Thanks for the gracious response! I expect that as applied in practice since women have been more common in more military environments, there have indeed been some opposite-sex encounters which drew notice and punishment even when same-sex encounters of the exact same sort were let slide -- I'm thinking mostly of horseplay/hazing/harassment kind of stuff. And I don't have much of a problem with that. (I've got two sons and two daughters, and yeah, my boys got away with more rough-housing of each other than either was permitted with their sisters.)

But my impression is that before DADT was first enacted, the UCMJ's express prohibitions and strictures were never varied based on sexual preference. Article 125, for example, on sodomy doesn't depend on whether it's male-male or male-female or female-female contact. But since it essentially outlaws all sex organ contact other than penile/vaginal contact (including any kind of oral sex, hetero- or homosexual), and since two gay guys can't manage to qualify for that penis-vagina safe harbor (so to speak), article 125's practical impact on homosexuals was greater than on heterosexuals (at least those who limited themselves to pretty conventional heterosexual sexual contact).

So now, with DADT's repeal, my impression is that the UCMJ has been returned to its previous status, which is to say, it doesn't make sexual preference -- as such and by itself -- a basis for any criminal charge. How much of article 125 survives Lawrence v. Texas is another question altogether, though. Someone on Patterico's blog pointed me to U.S. v. Marcum, but it really doesn't grapple very thoroughly with that question. To the extent its holding can be generalized, I'd say it's still entirely possible, and actually quite probable, that Article 125 would be deemed unconstitutional as applied to any private consensual sex act (including oral and anal sex) involving a service member so long as the activity occurred off-base, off-duty, and didn't involve the potential of silent coercion that inheres whenever two people are in one another's direct chain of command. Whether it's hetero- or homosexual sex, though, won't be particularly relevant to the constitutional analysis.

(Note: I'm NOT saying that's what the law ought to be. I think Lawrence was a travesty -- an act of willing self-delusion by Justice Kennedy and the best example of why "substantive due process" is a particularly virulent form of cancer in our constitutional law.)

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jenner: This is very enlightening as to what you think about members of the military.

If you think that's shocking, then you have no idea how an organization like the military works.

Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

@ The Drill Sgt, good friend (12/22/10 5:54 PM): I don't dispute the UCMJ contains some serious prohibitions and penalties for fraternization and misconduct.

What I thought was incorrect was the suggestion that the UCMJ's express terms treat opposite-sex and same-sex matters differently.

And @ Hagar (12/22/10 5:16 PM): Thanks for the gracious response! I expect you're completely right that as applied in practice since women have been more common in more military environments, there were some opposite-sex encounters which drew notice and punishment when same-sex encounters of the exact same sort were let slide -- I'm thinking mostly horseplay/hazing/harassment kind of stuff. I don't have much of a problem with that.

But my impression is that before DADT was first enacted, the UCMJ's express prohibitions and strictures were never varied based on sexual preference. Article 125, for example, on sodomy doesn't depend on whether it's male-male or male-female or female-female contact. But since it essentially outlaws all sex organ contact other than penile/vaginal contact (including any kind of oral sex, hetero- or homosexual), and since two gay guys can't manage to qualify for that penis-vagina safe harbor (so to speak), article 125's practical impact on homosexuals was greater than on heterosexuals (at least those who limited themselves to pretty conventional heterosexual sexual contact).

So now, with DADT's repeal, my impression is that the UCMJ has been returned to its previous status, which is to say, it doesn't make sexual preference -- as such and by itself -- a basis for any criminal charge. How much of article 125 survives Lawrence v. Texas is another question altogether, though. Someone on Patterico's blog pointed me to U.S. v. Marcum, but it really doesn't grapple very thoroughly with that question. To the extent its holding can be generalized, I'd say it's still entirely possible, and actually quite probable, that Article 125 would be deemed unconstitutional as applied to any private consensual sex act (including oral and anal sex) involving a service member so long as the activity occurred off-base, off-duty, and didn't involve the potential of silent coercion that inheres whenever two people are in one another's direct chain of command. Whether it's hetero- or homosexual sex, though, won't be particularly relevant to the constitutional analysis.

(Note: I'm NOT saying that's what the law ought to be. I think Lawrence was a travesty -- an act of willing self-delusion by Justice Kennedy and the best example of why "substantive due process" is a particularly virulent form of cancer in our constitutional law.)

SMGalbraith said...

Geez, Galbraith. For someone who claims to be unconcerned with my member you sure sound interested in its size

Observation doesn't equal concern.

Like an umpire, I just call it the way I see it without any concern on the outcome of the game.

As to the changes: quite a number of commenters here have dismissed the concerns about disruption in military cohesion and effectiveness.

The "rights" of gay American trumps those concerns.

I think not but also believe that those problems can be overcome and that the contributions by patriotic gay Americans far outweighs any costs.

Equality has nothing to do with it. Military preparedness and effectiveness is the concern. The military isn't a democracy.

And with that, good day.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

I think Lawrence was a travesty

Wow. Is Beldar actually sticking up for the butthole police force that gave a Texas sheriff one too many things to concern himself with?

The Drill SGT said...

Beldar said... What I thought was incorrect was the suggestion that the UCMJ's express terms treat opposite-sex and same-sex matters differently, or that it's especially strict in its treatment when opposite sexes are involved.

ok, now I understand your point. Only 134 cohabitation stands up to your test, as it is nearly impossible to find a homo-homo couple guilty of the first 2 elements of proof:

(1) That, during a certain period of time, the accused and another person openly and publicly lived together as husband and wife, holding themselves out as such;

(2) That the other person was not the spouse of the accused;

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Like an umpire, I just call it the way I see it without any concern on the outcome of the game.

Before you wish me a good day, Galbraith, remember that being a peeping Tom is not looked kindly upon by the authorities.

Other than that, glad to know we agree on the substantive issue.

Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Maybe Jimbob Jay is talking about all the Arabic translators we just had to kick out of the service for not being disposed to "proper" piece of tail. That was a great boon to our mission, I'm sure.

Hysterical.

And how many of these "translators" were kicked out?

Jay said...

So the military has been excluding a few less than ideal gay soldiers, while keeping a large number of less than ideal straight soldiers.

How would you know?

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

The amount of detail in the 6:54 PM discourse on penis-vagina-anus dynamics is enough to either direct a hard-core mixed couple porn movie or submit to The Kinsey Institute for extra-extra credit.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Hysterical.

Jay pretends to be interested in credible sources.

Jay said...

People are replaceable, especially in the military.

Um, you've never served in the military.

How would you know?

Don't you think you're just a bit obnoxious making these obscene pronouncements?

You do understand you're an ignorant person speaking out of their ass, right?

Jay said...

Jay pretends to be interested in credible sources.

Notice you can't answer the question, bozo.

Want to take a guess as to why that is?

Jay said...

They need people they can train who will work with anybody.

Really?

Do they need people who can "train with" people who are not suited to be there?

Your incoherent babble is certainly casting gay's in a bad light.

The military isn't your little lab to mess around with.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Jay, I find your interest in responding to an observation with a question to be quite seductive.

Jay said...

Maybe Jimbob Jay is talking about all the Arabic translators we just had to kick out of the service

This is an assertion with no basis in reality.

You are not that bright and easily misled.

Jenner said...

If you think that's shocking, then you have no idea how an organization like the military works.

You do?

Lawgiver said...

The number of Arabic translators post-9/11 has been abysmal, and a significant chunk of that low rate was due to DADT.

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.

How many Arab translators have we "lost" in the past 9 years due to DADT? 60? 60 is the number that floats around teh internets. How many Arab translators does the DOD/government employ anyway? And if 60 is a "significant chunk" of Arab translaotrs lost in the past 9 nine years then we are really screwed. Your talking points don't correspond with reality.

Jay said...

If you think that's shocking, then you have no idea how an organization like the military works.

You certainly do not.

But that won't keep you from making an utter fool of yourself.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Jay's Tourettes is kicking in again.

Jay said...

The number of Arabic translators post-9/11 has been abysmal, and a significant chunk of that low rate was due to DADT.

Laugh out loud funny.

These are the people who think they should govern military policy.

Yikes.

The Drill SGT said...

How many Arab translators have we "lost" in the past 9 years due to DADT? 60? 60 is the number that floats around teh internets. How many Arab translators does the DOD/government employ anyway

news flash.

some number of those arab translators announced they were gay to void their enlistment contracts regardless of their sexual preferences

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Reality would involve assigning a denominator to your own fuckin rebuttal, Lawgiver. But then, doing that might give you a basis for understanding whether or not you actually had a point to make.

Any Arabic translator who was kicked out of the service post-9/11 is one too many to me. But I forget how silly it is for me to think of such piddly things as "priorities" and "purpose". How badly they get in the way of robotic mental circuitry and the like.

That phenomenon doesn't make anti-repeal folks look good, no matter how you slice it.

Lawgiver said...

Althouse says,

People were allowed to serve, but expected to serve with a secret and thrown out if the secret happened to be divulged. That's a terrible way to treat members of the armed services.

Yeah, it sucked that I couldn't tell them I had dropped acid. Flashbacks you know.

Beldar said...

Sorry for multiple posting -- was getting a strange error message from Blogger and didn't realize it was making multiple posts.

@Conservative For Dental Hygene (12/22/10 6:48 PM): I'm not defending the wisdom, as a policy matter, of the Texas sodomy law that only criminalized homosexual sodomy. I concur with Justice Thomas' dissent -- it was a profoundly silly and unwise law as a matter of public policy and basic fairness. If I'd been a legislator, I'd vote against it; if I'd been the governor of Texas, I'd have vetoed it.

But yeah, I think it was constitutional. I don't think there's any constitutional right to privacy beyond what's actually IN the Constitution (e.g., the Fourth Amendment), so yes, I think Griswold v. Connecticutt, involving another unwise and bigoted state law, was also wrongly decided.

There are lots and lots of stupid and unfair laws that are nevertheless constitutional. Anyone who can't accept that proposition -- and many on the Left genuinely don't -- doesn't really understand the difference between statutes and constitutions and why we bother to have both.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

These are the people who think they should govern military policy.

These are the fascists who resent civilian control of the military.

Beldar said...

(FWIW, I don't think DADT was unconstitutional either. It was just a bad policy, so I'm glad to see it undone.)

Cedarford said...

AJ Lynch said...
I can imagine the topics of conversation at the typical liberal cocktail party: DADT, horrible Faux News, did you know Alexander The Great was gay, Repubs are racist hence they opposed the Dream Act, Obama is the Comeback Kid, public schools are underfunded, gay marriage, Arabic translators, campaign finance reform, how's your Prius, did you put up a Winter Solstice tree this year, damn global warming deniers, damn social security lockbox deniers,even NPR denied Soc Sec lockbox, your own kid's private school, Michele Obama is right about feds policing what kids eat.

I'd have to kill myself before I'd listen to one minute of those librul dimwits
======================
Well, it took me a minute to read your screed and it was well worth the time.
Great laugh.
I feel sorry for those with a critical thinking mind forced by friends or boss to be stuck in a crowd of either liberals spouting NYTimes narrative drivel, or Palinesque voodoo economics conservatives thanking Jesus for tax cuts for the rich and destroying US industry by Free Trade creating "a new Morning in America".

At least the conservative voodoo economics people will be civil if you disagree with them. Depart even slightly from liberal ideology and you get branded a "Hater".

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Beldar,

Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between a law that is merely silly and a law that is not only silly but so intrusive as to require that a police squad put its resources into investigating whether and how another person's butthole is being used, lest that involve pleasurable purposes that other people claim to find "icky"?

I find a government so concerned with butthole pleasure to be a bit icky to my idea of freedom, but I guess that's just the armchair jurist in me.

Lawgiver said...

Any Arabic translator who was kicked out of the service post-9/11 is one too many to me.

I agree, I wish they had all been reassigned as security police at Shemya.

Cedarford said...

Any Arabic translator who was kicked out of the service post-9/11 is one too many to me.

=========
I never got the liberals claimed centrality between being homosexual and the ability to translate Arabic.
Maybe it says something about the Camel jockeys.
Or is it one of those languages only gay Americans can learn and become adept at because it requires speaking around a penis in one's mouth to get the right guttaral tones?

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

There goes Kommandant "Klink" Cedarford, not understanding how a Venn diagram works once again.

Lawgiver said...

Cedar, you are an asshole...but that was funny!

Cedarford said...

If Arabic does require some dick jostling in a mouth to get it to sound right, why not have the military hire straight women translators?

amba said...

It's very true that the younger people are, the less they are bothered or threatened by someone else in their proximity being gay. There's also a class gradient, though. On average, the young people most likely to volunteer for the military may also be those still most uncomfortable with homosexuality. (Including many black and Latino people.)

This is a time lag issue. It's evolving to be a nonissue, but along a gradient. Do you let the avant garde drag the slowest along, or do you let the slowest hold everyone back? It's tricky. My guess, or hope, is that formal "Don't ask/don't tell" will be replaced by an informal, commonsense "Don't lie/don't flaunt."

edutcher said...

Now we'll have the homosexuals a protected species in the military as in civilian life. Anyone who objects is a homophobe and suffers the consequences (more so because of regs). There will be sensitivity training and a special code of conduct and, of course, a special promotion list.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jay:

Since we need to make massive cuts to our military, that probably is a good thing. And having the people who don't work well in a team volunteer to leave is a blessing.


He spilled the beans. That's what he and the rest of the Lefties want.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Re: guttural, it actually was funny now that I think about it.

amba said...

Because in the military, the identity that trumps ALL others is "soldier."

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

I don't know, man. The idea of putting the government up someone's butt just doesn't sound right to me.

If a gay man doesn't have the right to be up someone's butt, why should the government be there?

I just don't get it.

Alcuria said...

Any Arabic translator who was kicked out of the service post-9/11 is one too many to me. But I forget how silly it is for me to think of such piddly things as "priorities" and "purpose". How badly they get in the way of robotic mental circuitry and the like.

Robotic mental circuitry? Really?

Ask Dan Choi who came out on the Rachel Maddow show. West Point Grad, fluent in Arabic, combat tours in Iraq and the like. What about his priority? He put his sexuality before his military obligation and the readiness of his unit.

Priorities indeed.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Yeah! What does Dan Choi's personal integrity matter anyway!

I see no reason not to consider someone who assumes sexlessness to be a great way to carry out their mission in life, military or not, to be operating under robotic mental circuitry.

Beldar said...

@ The Drill Sgt (12/22/10 6:51 PM): I think DOMA would require any military court to give the conventional and sex-limited meanings to "husband," "wife," and "spouse" in the UCMJ. And that would, as a practical matter, prevent either member of a male-male couple who claimed to be married from qualifying as a "wife," even if their home state's law would permits that and recognize their marriage. That was pretty much the whole point of the DOMA.

@Cedarford (12/22/10 5:48 PM): I agree that proponents of "gay rights" will certainly use the repeal of DADT as part of their arguments for further gains in both the legislative and judicial forums, and in particular, that they'll do so in their arguments to permit gay marriage.

I think that when they're arguing policy in legislative forums, the repeal of DADT is indeed a legitimate data point in tracking trends of public opinion and acceptance. And that's not an illegitimate consideration as part of a policy argument before a legislature, at least to the extent one is considering society's attitudes toward homosexuality generally as part of the context of discussing a change in the definition of marriage in particular.

But I don't think it's controlling or decisive. I think it's entirely possible and self-consistent to be both against gay marriage and in favor of the repeal of DADT. A conclusion against the latter doesn't compel a conclusion in favor of the former because there are lots of issues involved with gay marriage in addition to changing public opinions about homosexuality in general.

And I think that in a judicial forum, the repeal of DADT ought to change exactly NOTHING in the proper analysis of claims that the Constitution requires gay marriage -- again, because constitutions aren't supposed to change based on public opinion polls. Even if every single American suddenly decided that gay marriage is a great and wonderful thing, that wouldn't create a new constitutional right to gay marriage.

But yeah, there are left-wing judges already willing to ignore the absence of any provision in the Constitution that makes sexual preference a suspect classification, or who deride as "wholly irrational" every argument made in favor of restricting marriage to the conventional historical definition. And yeah, they'll cite -- or, in my opinion, mis-cite -- the repeal of DADT as support for their ruling. Again, that's because they don't have a proper understanding of what constitutions are, and instead they think anything they really, really want and believe thereby becomes a constitutional right, regardless of what the Constitution actually says or whether anyone ever shared their views when they were drafting, ratifying, or interpreting the Constitution.

That some liberal, activist judges will mis-use and mis-construe the repeal of DADT is just not, in my judgment, a very good reason to continue a constitutional-but-unwise policy of sorting soldiers into categories based on their sexual preferences.

Jay said...

He spilled the beans. That's what he and the rest of the Lefties want.

Yes, yes he did.

They seem to want a Euro style military that hands out bags of rice when there are natural disasters and that wears shiny medals at parades.

And of course ferry's around (pun intended) elected Democrats on military aircraft...

somefeller said...

AJ Lynch mutters into his beer:I can imagine the topics of conversation at the typical liberal cocktail party: DADT, horrible Faux News, did you know Alexander The Great was gay, Repubs are racist hence they opposed the Dream Act, Obama is the Comeback Kid, public schools are underfunded, gay marriage, Arabic translators, campaign finance reform, how's your Prius, did you put up a Winter Solstice tree this year, damn global warming deniers, damn social security lockbox deniers,even NPR denied Soc Sec lockbox, your own kid's private school, Michele Obama is right about feds policing what kids eat. I'd have to kill myself before I'd listen to one minute of those librul dimwits.

It must be tough going through life filled with resentment against imaginary images of events you'll never be invited to. You have my pity.

And the Congress gained some respect from me with this one. I wasn't convinced the Democrats would have the backbone to push DADT repeal or that enough Republicans would do more than pay lip service to get this passed. Nice gift for the holidays. Merry Christmas and a happy new arms control treaty to everyone!

Hagar said...

I would think that as a practical matter, it is 50-50 that the phrase "gays serving openly" will conflict in some way with "inappropriate behavior," "conduct unbecoming," etc., and diverse paragraphs of the UCMJ not necessarily referring to sexual behavior.

I wish the JAG and the barracks lawyers luck sorting out which is which.

jr565 said...

Similarly, if Corporal so and so is cheating on his wife and that's a bootable offense, then do your damndest to keep it quiet, and or not get outed. If you get outed, should have been more careful. But you know the rules. If you want to serve shut up about it and do your job.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jay: They seem to want a Euro style military that hands out bags of rice when there are natural disasters and that wears shiny medals at parades.

An economy which isn't growing quickly and spends a large percentage of its GDP on the military will be defeated, long term, by economies with faster growth rates which spend less.

Look at recent history: We didn't even have to go to war with the Soviets, they just gave up.

jr565 said...

Conservatives 4 Dental Hygiene wrote:
Before you wish me a good day, Galbraith, remember that being a peeping Tom is not looked kindly upon by the authorities.


Unless you're gay in the military, afer the repeal of DADT.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

That's ridiculous jr. There is a difference between not having to feel ashamed about one's life and having someone else intrude in on it.

What's up with the whole not understanding boundaries thing?

jr565 said...

Jason wrote:
An economy which isn't growing quickly and spends a large percentage of its GDP on the military will be defeated, long term, by economies with faster growth rates which spend less.

Look at recent history: We didn't even have to go to war with the Soviets, they just gave up.

It's not like we didn't spend a hell of a lot when facing off against the russians. Remember that whole military industrial complex thing.
And why single the military spending out, as compared ot say spenidng on Medicaire or Medicaide,or entitlements. Becuase then you could argue that an economy that isn't growing quickly (us) which spends the majority of it's economy on entitlements (us) will lose out to other countries that spend less. I'm supposing then that this is your way of criticizing Obama and his profligate spending, right? Or is it only military spending which causes countries to lose, and not that they spend too much on everything.

Jason (the commenter) said...

jr565: I'm supposing then that this is your way of criticizing Obama and his profligate spending, right?

Don't assume because some people call me a liberal that I am. No sarcasm is needed, I think the social programs need to get slashed, too.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

AJ Lynch mutters into his beer:I can imagine the topics of conversation at the typical liberal cocktail party: DADT, horrible Faux News, did you know Alexander The Great was gay, Repubs are racist hence they opposed the Dream Act, Obama is the Comeback Kid, public schools are underfunded, gay marriage, Arabic translators, campaign finance reform, how's your Prius, did you put up a Winter Solstice tree this year, damn global warming deniers, damn social security lockbox deniers,even NPR denied Soc Sec lockbox, your own kid's private school, Michele Obama is right about feds policing what kids eat. I'd have to kill myself before I'd listen to one minute of those librul dimwits.

It must be tough going through life filled with resentment against imaginary images of events you'll never be invited to. You have my pity.


In other words, the sort of gathering where The Zero talked about bitter clingers.

Jason (the commenter) said...
Jay: They seem to want a Euro style military that hands out bags of rice when there are natural disasters and that wears shiny medals at parades.

An economy which isn't growing quickly and spends a large percentage of its GDP on the military will be defeated, long term, by economies with faster growth rates which spend less.


Not too many of those out there, including the Red Chinese, who are financed by inflation (QE2, anyone?) and are in danger of a bigger housing bubble than we are.

Of course, the economy might grow lots faster if the government got out of the social welfare business and stopped trying to buy votes with things like ZeroCare and Social Security.

But we couldn't do that, could we?

Jay said...

An economy which isn't growing quickly and spends a large percentage of its GDP on the military will be defeated, long term, by economies with faster growth rates which spend less.

The US doesn't spend a large percentage of its GDP on the military.

The US is going to pay more to black farmers in 1 year than it will spend on force readiness in 5.

You are making incoherent postings.

Eli Blake said...

In fairness, Obama's position was that this should be done by Congress rather than by executive order, because an executive order can be reversed by a future executive. It was done by Congress, as he said it should be.

edutcher said...

This shouldn't be in the hands of politicians or the courts. That was Willie's doing.

It should be a military decision, based on service needs. What Mullen & Co did was suck up to the politicians who approve promotions and pass out money.

somefeller said...

edutcher says:This shouldn't be in the hands of politicians or the courts. That was Willie's doing. It should be a military decision, based on service needs. What Mullen & Co did was suck up to the politicians who approve promotions and pass out money.

In this country, the military reports to civilian authorities, such as politicians and courts. That concept isn't particularly controversial among military men and women. Didn't they teach you that at clown college? And the aspersions you heap regarding the motives of officers like "Mullen & Co" say more about you than about them.

Also, I notice you like to talk a lot about military regs this and military need that. Did you ever spend any time in uniform, edutcher? Or is this just an exercise in armed forces jocksniffing for you? I may be mistaken, but it wouldn't surprise me if the answer is behind door number two.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jay: The US doesn't spend a large percentage of its GDP on the military.

It ends up being about a third of our tax revenue.

Alex said...

This is just the first step on the way to allowing gay sex in the barracks. Just you wait and see.

Alex said...

It shouldn't be that some people are freer than others to talk about their life experiences and loved ones.

Boo-fucking-hoo. Life isn't fair professor. Grow up.

Leo Ladenson said...

A very sad day for our country. Prepare to have your daughters drafted all so a few queers feel good about themselves.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Alex: This is just the first step on the way to allowing gay sex in the barracks.

Oh, so straight sex is allowed in the barracks right now?

djf said...

This is a horrible sad day for our country. Just more evidence of the decline of America. Obama's communist agenda on the march. The purpose of this is not to get more gays into the military, the purpose is to create a military without traditional Americans. A military that can be turned on ordinary Americans when the Left decides it is time to make their move.

Leo Ladenson said...

Oh, so straight sex is allowed in the barracks right now?


No, because the barracks are segregated by gender.

That won't work with the homos.

AJ Lynch said...

Somefeller:

Modo, Frank Rich and a bunch of liberal pundits write often about what Repubs and conservatives are like and how they think. In your world, that means Dowd et al spend a lot of time dreaming about being with the Repubs?

Btw screwiest story of Obama admin incompetence I heard lately is Obama's terrorist chief [Clapper?] was unaware of recent London terror arrests because he was concentrating on N.Korea threat?? Wtf - does that make sense to libs like you? Even liberal Diane Sawyer viewed it as incompetence and stupidity.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Leo Ladenson: No, because the barracks are segregated by gender.

So sex is okay in the barracks right now? The only thing anyone would get in trouble for is having someone of the wrong sex in their barracks?

rubberneckingonthegowanis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rubberneckingonthegowanis said...

I challenged you on bloggingheads when you repeatedly attacked Obama and called him a liar based on your incorrect, misleading, and intellectually dishonest reading of Obama's interview with liberal bloggers. I thoroughly backed up my challenge in the bloggingheads comments. Again, the pure intellectual dishonesty of your carefully excerpted "coverage" of Obama's remarks was nothing less than repugnant. I'm afraid there isn't a nicer way of putting it.

Anyway, I thought to check in and see what comments you would have on the DADT repeal after having thoroughly written off the President's concerted and politically savvy efforts to repeal the policy. At the end of the day, your criticisms were wrong with extreme prejudice. There's not nicer way of putting that. You owe the president an apology.

bagoh20 said...

Will possession of wood in the shower be an infraction? And if so will it be dealt with through discipline? And what if that produces even more wood? I see details popping up and causing problems. It's not the soldiers that will have problems but the brass and policy makers. Fortunately, the military is the best in government at dealing with personnel issues, but will that be another casualty of progress?

bagoh20 said...

"That won't work with the homos."

When it comes to gettin' some, it's always been better to be gay.

David said...

Eli Blake said...
"In fairness, Obama's position was that this should be done by Congress rather than by executive order, because an executive order can be reversed by a future executive. It was done by Congress, as he said it should be."

Wrong again, Eli.

DADT was a statute, which can not be overturned by an executive order. It had to be done by Congress because that is what the Constitution requires, not because Obama preferred it.

The military will deal with this in good order, I believe. Not without problems, but in their usual effective manner.

Palladian said...

"You owe the president an apology."

Fuck you. The President is an anti-gay scumbag, just like most of the rest of politicians. He just pretends, on this occasion, because the asshole is desperate for any constituency at all. The Democrats have played us faggots for fools for a hell of a long time, and a lot of us are royally sick of it.

former law student said...

the odious Clinton-era legislation known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Why odious and not progressive -- worlds better than the outright ban it replaced.

One might as well call civil unions odious -- still unavailable in many states, they are a milestone along the road to same sex marriage.

Half a loaf is always better than none to a hungry man.

E Buzz said...

Tens of thousands?

Why do I feel the shucksterism of Bill Clinton is smeared all over Barry in this case. What a goddamn pandering liar.

Drew said...

If no one was asking and no one was tell, where does Obama get "tens of thousands of Americans"?

I couldn't figure out the "looking over their shoulder" thing either (and that's not even considering the plural/singular conflict).

When Obama is speaking, it's best not to listen. Puzzling it out causes migraines.

Stephen said...

Ann Althouse said...

"The rules about acting out sexually should just be equal for everyone, part of order and discipline. It shouldn't be that some people are freer than others to talk about their life experiences and loved ones."

Before repeal of DADT this was true. Everyone was able to act out sexually in the exact same way. No one was given special privileges.

The basic problem with this whole argument is the false assumption by some that it is analogous to civil rights of blacks. Blacks were denied rights based on the immutable characteristics of skin color. Skin color is dictated by DNA which is transcribed into RNA which then expresses a protein.

Homosexuality on the other hand is totally a function of behavior. It is not an immutable characteristic. Also, there is abundant evidence that nurture plays a large role it the development of homosexual tendencies and the role of nature is appears to be small.

Salamandyr said...

I seriously doubt it has been tens of thousands. I'm willing to bet (and the available evidence backs me up on this), that the great majority of separations for homosexuality were brought about by a service member making an open declaration in order to get out of a service contract. Now it'll be a bit harder to weasel out when Basic Training gets too tough. This isn't really a bad thing.

That being said, I approve of letting gays serve openly in the military. I just find the overheated rhetoric around this issue to be somewhat noxious.

TWM said...

"Being gay isn't even interesting in real life in most places, let alone something you would get fired for."

See, here's your problem, you believe serving in the military is just regular ole "real life." It isn't, and it can't be if a military force is to be functional. And no amount of feel good bullshit is gonna change that.

former law student said...

Homosexuality on the other hand is totally a function of behavior. It is not an immutable characteristic. Also, there is abundant evidence that nurture plays a large role it the development of homosexual tendencies and the role of nature is appears to be small.


An erect penis does not lie. You cannot train your brain to thus respond to the naked body of the inappropriate sex. How can any rational being believe otherwise?

But now we can perhaps see the root of homophobia: the fear of becoming a convert. For if the above thesis is true, is noth the complement also true?

Heterosexuality on the other hand is totally a function of behavior. It is not an immutable characteristic. Also, there is abundant evidence that nurture plays a large role it the development of heterosexual tendencies and the role of nature appears to be small.

Consider that our first love is the love of self. We're attracted to people who look the same as we do: if we have blond hair and blue eyes we're unlikely to find a Hottentot hot. And so on.

Youngblood said...

Jason (The Commenter) wrote:

"Don't assume because some people call me a liberal that I am. No sarcasm is needed, I think the social programs need to get slashed, too."

It's funny because Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern conservative movement, was vocally in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Jenner said...

The comparison of integrating homosexuals to integrating blacks is not analogous and it's not because skin color is immutable whereas homosexuality "may" not be.

The only valid concern for repealing DADT goes to unit cohesion -- specifically those relationships that may be created with varied sexual orientations within a small group.

The primary reason women are not in all male combat units is not because they aren't strong enough or they are too emotional, etc. It's because of the potential for romantic relationships to form between members of the same unit. These relationships, whose bonds will be closer than the bonds others will have with the same people, do have the potential to interfere with the mission and are therefore a rational and reasonable threat to good order and discipline.

Anne said...

Maybe I am wrong, but since the congress only repealed DADT, that would mean the previous rules would apply. And the rule before Clinton signed DADT was the complete restriction of gays serving in the military. If you were found out to be gay you were summarily dishonorably discharged, with no recourse. How is this progress? I think that if the gays want to serve in the military they should be given their own unit, and fight along side other gays. We could have a contest even, who does more war mongering the gays or the straights? Who is more battle ready? Who captures more prisoners? etc.

Skyler said...

Also, there is abundant evidence that nurture plays a large role it the development of homosexual tendencies and the role of nature is appears to be small.

If this is true, and it certainly seems to be true of at least a significant portion of homosexuals, it highlights why it is bad policy to condone homosexuality and the legitimate policy reasons for discouraging homosexuality.

Stephen said...

former law student said...

"An erect penis does not lie. You cannot train your brain to thus respond to the naked body of the inappropriate sex. How can any rational being believe otherwise?

But now we can perhaps see the root of homophobia: the fear of becoming a convert. For if the above thesis is true, is noth the complement also true?"

1. It has been demonstrated that prisoners, who become desperate enough in prison, and start engaging in homosexual conduct in prison continue to be aroused by men.

2. There is no such thing as "homophobia." Literally it would be irrational fear of sameness. As to "homophobia" when referring to sexual behavior, there is nothing irrational or even imprudent in acknowledging that homosexual behavior is not a good thing.

Stephen said...

former law student said...

"An erect penis does not lie. You cannot train your brain to thus respond to the naked body of the inappropriate sex. How can any rational being believe otherwise?

But now we can perhaps see the root of homophobia: the fear of becoming a convert."

1. This is factually false. Prisoners who have never engaged in homosexual behavior, who then engage in it in prison out of desperation (what other reason would they do it?), are still stimulated by homosexual behavior after prison.

2. "homophobia" is not even a real thing. Irrational fear of sameness? As used by homosexual activists it is supposed to mean an irrational fear of people who engage in homosexual behavior. This is ridiculous too. There is nothing irrational about believing, through observation, that homosexual behavior is a bad thing.

Stephen said...

FYI: current law student.