Althouse: "President Barack Obama took steps on Wednesday to force a Senate vote on legislation that would begin to dismantle the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy..."

November 18, 2010

"President Barack Obama took steps on Wednesday to force a Senate vote on legislation that would begin to dismantle the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy..."

"... banning openly gay service members during the ongoing lame-duck legislative session, hosting a second White House strategy session with gay rights advocates and personally lobbying a key lawmaker who favors repeal of the ban."

I been worrying about the mischief the Democrats might make in the lame-duck session, but if this is the one they choose, I will be happy.

70 comments:

madAsHell said...: Can someone tell me what openly gay means?

I'm sure it means something different in San Francisco, vs. Austin vs. New York.

How do I open my orientation?; 11/18/10, 8:19 AM
Scott M said...: Can someone tell me what openly gay means?

It means in the communal showers and bathrooms of the military's rank and file, you'll have to get bathe with people you know are sexually attracted to you. About the same as forcing men and women to bath together no matter what they think about it.

President Obama needs a win, however spurious. Everything else seems to be going all swirly on him.; 11/18/10, 8:24 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Since when can a President "force" the Senate to vote on anything?; 11/18/10, 8:34 AM
Palladian said...: "Can someone tell me what openly gay means?"

It means not living on fear of having your career ruined if the "right" person should happen to find out the details of your private life, you know, the kind of details you "straight" people unthinkingly and constantly share with the world.

"It means in the communal showers and bathrooms of the military's rank and file, you'll have to get bathe with people you know are sexually attracted to you."

Do you carry this certainty that people are sexually attracted to you everywhere you go? Don't flatter yourself, dear.; 11/18/10, 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann, why do you, and people in academia in general, obsess so much about homosexuality?

You know, somewhere down deep in your consciousness, that there really is no reign of terror being waged against homosexuals. Invoking that BS is just the standard political ploy of creating martyrs.

Why do you obsess so about homosexuality?

Homosexuals, particularly those who might want to marry, are such a tiny minority as to be non-existent... well, except in academic communities.

Why are you trying to make such a big deal out of this?; 11/18/10, 8:37 AM
Triangle Man said...: It means not living on fear of having your career ruined if the "right" person should happen to find out the details of your private life, you know, the kind of details you "straight" people unthinkingly and constantly share with the world.

Where "details" can mean something as generic as this person has said that they are attracted to people of the same sex.; 11/18/10, 8:39 AM
Scott M said...: Do you carry this certainty that people are sexually attracted to you everywhere you go? Don't flatter yourself, dear.

Attractiveness, or the lack thereof, has zero to do with it.; 11/18/10, 8:41 AM
Triangle Man said...: You know, somewhere down deep in your consciousness, that there really is no reign of terror being waged against homosexuals. Invoking that BS is just the standard political ploy of creating martyrs.

"Reign of terror" is a straw man. However, if you believe that there is no negative social consequence to being homosexual, you are remarkably imperceptive.; 11/18/10, 8:42 AM
Mick said...: The military is not a democracy, but anyway...So I guess Lame duck shenanigans are OK if it's something you agree with?

Do you know about the Kerschner v. Obama et al case in SCOTUS conference on November 23, 2010?

Is it not important? Really? The very eligibility of the putative President is not important enough to weigh in on?

Docket 10-446

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42559111/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-15Nov2010-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly; 11/18/10, 8:43 AM
dbp said...: "Do you carry this certainty that people are sexually attracted to you everywhere you go? Don't flatter yourself, dear."

If you said that to a woman who was forced to shower with a bunch of men, you would be lucky to get away with only a slap.; 11/18/10, 8:43 AM
Fen said...: Do you carry this certainty that people are sexually attracted to you everywhere you go?

So you're saying no bathroom privacy for women if they are dogs? Only the hot ones get to avoid unisex bath and berthing?

Thats your logic?; 11/18/10, 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: All Bigot-O-Mania, 24 hours a day!

It's a regular Bigot-O-Mania Festival!; 11/18/10, 8:48 AM
dbp said...: From my days in the Marine Corps; fit young people are almost all fairly attractive.

In regards to women in the Corps, there was a saying when I was in that the Marine Corps can turn anyone into a man. But really, women Marines were usually good looking. It is possible my views were skewed by their relative scarcity.; 11/18/10, 8:48 AM
garage mahal said...: Time to find out who supports the troops, and who does not.; 11/18/10, 8:49 AM
Triangle Man said...: It's a regular Bigot-O-Mania Festival!

Not bigots, just people who are strongly attached to their opinions, and resist considering alternative opinions, often with animosity.

There should be a Jeff Foxworthy analogy here.; 11/18/10, 9:02 AM
John said...: "Why do you obsess so about homosexuality?"

Probably because she knows (and cares about) someone who is gay.; 11/18/10, 9:09 AM
former law student said...: Just as I predicted. Good.

DADT repeal by a vote of Congress, after the military has considered all the ramifications and prepared a plan to deal with it, will be much more acceptable than DADT repeal forced on the military, monitored by a single judge in Riverside, California. As the comments indicate here, DADT repeal will not be universally palatable, but DADT repeal by Act of Congress will be much more defensible than DADT repeal by a "judicial activist."; 11/18/10, 9:15 AM
Palladian said...: It's funny, this notion that human sexuality is a strict binary system. Does it ever occur to you big, bad armchair soldiers that perhaps Gunny Luvtits might also occasionally like the company of another man in the bedroom? What to do about that?

I do worry about you fragile flowers being entrusted with the enormous responsibility of protecting America and facing down our enemies when you fear the imaginary faggot lusting after your sorry ass in the shower.

Maybe some sort of "Clockwork Orange" reconditioning for incoming personnel...; 11/18/10, 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: So, Palladian, you're addicted to this Bigot-O-Mania, nonsense.

After you get what you want, what's the next step in Bigot-O-Mania?

You've pretty much defined your existence by this BS. I'm pretty sure you'll never give it up.

You really get a kick out of it, don't you?; 11/18/10, 9:18 AM
Palladian said...: Of course if this gambit is successful, I'll be somewhat dismayed that it had to happen on President SorryAss's watch.

I don't really like the protection of my rights being used as a desperate buffing cloth for his or his sorry-assed party's tarnished halos.; 11/18/10, 9:20 AM
Palladian said...: I don't give a flying fuck about bigotry, other than it's a bad personality trait. I couldn't care less who or what the average American likes or dislikes, as it's not really any of my business. All I care about is that in the future people who wish to serve their country will be able to do it without being worried about the consequences of an irrational and pointless rule.; 11/18/10, 9:24 AM
Scott M said...: So, Palladian, what I'm hearing is that you're calling on a complete end to segregated housing for the enlisted (because that's who it really impacts), correct? That is the logical extension of what your point seems to be.; 11/18/10, 9:28 AM
former law student said...: "It means in the communal showers and bathrooms of the military's rank and file, you'll have to get bathe with people you know are sexually attracted to you."

Is that really worse than bathing with people who are trying to conceal their sexual attraction to you? Ignorance is bliss, in other words?

Back in the Jurassic, when I took high school PE, the locker room had a gang shower. So all of us sweaty, panting adolescents inevitably had to bathe under the gaze of -- from a statistical point of view, if nothing else -- horny gay youth.

In fact, years later, I discovered just how many gays had been in my class -- they had kept themselves deep in the closet in hs.; 11/18/10, 9:29 AM
Fen said...: All I care about is that in the future people who wish to serve their country will be able to do it without being worried about the consequences of an irrational and pointless rule.

Like mixing women into combat units? I mean, they fight just as hard as the men, so it must be an "irrational and pointless rule"?

Except that when you mix opposite sexes in these units, their effectiveness declines. The men stop responding to each other as brothers, as a team, and start competing for the female's attention.

And people end up dead because of it.

But hey, whats a few more dead Marines to advance Gay Marriage, right?; 11/18/10, 9:33 AM
Scott M said...: Ah. I see FLS is also calling for the end of segregated housing.; 11/18/10, 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: ""Reign of terror" is a straw man. However, if you believe that there is no negative social consequence to being homosexual, you are remarkably imperceptive."

If you believe there is no negative consequences for the military you are remarkably imperceptive.; 11/18/10, 9:40 AM
Fen said...: Does it ever occur to you big, bad armchair soldiers

I am a former United States Marine. 2D and 3D Light Armored Reconnaissance Division.

perhaps Gunny Luvtits might also occasionally like the company of another man in the bedroom? What to do about that?

Well, if the troops under his command discover it, he'll lose their respect, they'll question his judgement and leadership.

When that happens, people start coming home in bodybags.

I do worry about you fragile flowers being entrusted with the enormous responsibility of protecting America and facing down our enemies when you fear the imaginary faggot lusting after your sorry ass in the shower.

Yah, you really don't understand the topic. But keep playing the homophobic card and expecting different results.; 11/18/10, 9:40 AM
garage mahal said...: Of course if this gambit is successful, I'll be somewhat dismayed that it had to happen on President SorryAss's watch.

Don't worry you can always blame him later.; 11/18/10, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "...In fact, years later, I discovered just how many gays had been in my class -- they had kept themselves deep in the closet in hs."

Sounds like DADT. Sounds like it worked out too.; 11/18/10, 9:42 AM
Scott M said...: Don't worry you can always blame him later.

President Obama has provided ample precedent for that, eh, Garage?; 11/18/10, 9:42 AM
Fen said...: BTW, a GYSGT is the face of senior enlisted for the battalion. Daily. We rarely see the 1STSGT.

The secret to the USMC's success is its NCO leadership. So lets fuck with that and see what it gets us.; 11/18/10, 9:45 AM
madAsHell said...: Just what I thought.....nobody knows what openly gay means, but we think it should be foisted on the military. This is a slippery slope.

What are the limits to being openly gay??

What are the limits to being openly heterosexual? The military has already addressed this problem. You can't chase the skirts.

Will homosexuals be allowed greater expression than heterosexuals?

The military is not a social club, and we should keep it that way.; 11/18/10, 9:51 AM
former law student said...: end of segregated housing

No, I would like to know the difference. Let us say that there's a 90% chance that one sailor out of 40 is a big gay man watching you soap up your butt crack. Is that really different from learning that Al has a boyfriend back home?; 11/18/10, 9:51 AM
Scott M said...: There is no difference, sexually (because let's face it, that's what it comes down to) between forcing straight people to quarter with gay members of their gender and forcing women and men to share quarters. There are good reasons why we don't presently do the latter.

It doesn't matter if it's one in one-thousand. You're asking the majority to accommodate the vast minority (if your own numbers hold up) without any consideration for the majority or any idea what the consequences are going to be.

I'll state again that I really don't care if servicepeople are gay or not. If the military can solve the housing (both on post/base and, more importantly onboard ship) issue then damn the torpedoes, so to speak. What the civilian leadership is doing is putting the cart before the horse with very little understanding of what the outcomes are going to be, all in the name of placating a vocal minority of it's base.

Should it be done? Sure, if it can be made workable within the constraints of military reality.; 11/18/10, 9:58 AM
Fen said...: Is that really different from learning that Al has a boyfriend back home?

Yes. Your sexual/emotional attraction to my gunner means that I cannot trust your judgement re him when the bullets start flying.

And if you're in position to give orders, everyone under your command will wonder if you're playing favorites. They'll hesitate. And someone will die because of it.; 11/18/10, 10:02 AM
Chef Mojo said...: @Fen:

Let's try this variation on for size:

Yes. Your feelings of racial prejudice towards my gunner means that I cannot trust your judgement re him when the bullets start flying.

And if you're in position to give orders, everyone under your command will wonder if you're playing favorites. They'll hesitate. And someone will die because of it.

These were the same arguments used against integrating the armed forces. Then, as now, the Marines resisted change the most.

This is going to happen whether you like it or not, and the Marines will nut up and do what they've always done; adapt to the mission and succeed at their appointed task. It's what Marines do.; 11/18/10, 10:19 AM
MadisonMan said...: If underlings in your command are wasting their time screwing in the shower you have a problem with discipline that probably transcends just about everything else.; 11/18/10, 10:30 AM
Bryan C said...: Yes. Your sexual/emotional attraction to my gunner means that I cannot trust your judgement re him when the bullets start flying.

Suppose the gunner is his cousin? His best friend? Are soldiers really expected to be cold and indifferent to the lives of their companions?

If trained soldiers are prone to fatal hesitation when confronted with the mere possibility of emotional bias then we have much more serious problems in our military than gays in uniform.

w/v "Torkines". A delicious new high-protein breakfast cereal with hearty turkey and pork flavors!; 11/18/10, 10:30 AM
Palladian said...: "What are the limits to being openly heterosexual? The military has already addressed this problem. You can't chase the skirts."

Wearing a wedding ring is being openly heterosexual. If you're a male, living with your wife in base housing is being openly heterosexual.; 11/18/10, 10:31 AM
Palladian said...: "If trained soldiers are prone to fatal hesitation when confronted with the mere possibility of emotional bias then we have much more serious problems in our military than gays in uniform."

Yes, according to Fen, Scott M and company, our military is apparently now populated by a bunch of quivering, sensitive pussies who blanch at the thought of various sexual and interpersonal proclivities. Good luck facing down Jihadis.; 11/18/10, 10:34 AM
Scott M said...: Nice try lumping me in with a completely different line of debate. It belies a weakness in your argument to need to resort to that.

If you're a male, living with your wife in base housing is being openly heterosexual.

If you're living in base housing, you're avoiding my issue with this problem entirely. Try again.; 11/18/10, 10:37 AM
Fen said...: If underlings in your command are wasting their time screwing in the shower you have a problem with discipline that probably transcends just about everything else.

Recall a medical ship in the first Gulf War that had to be recalled when its personel readiness dropped to C-3. Because all the women had gotten pregnant.

"As I recall, a CG returning from deployment after the first Gulf War had 40% of its females pregnant. That means 40% of them had to be transferred and replaced. So much for orderly personnel management and crew integrity. You work a ship up through training so that you have a well-disciplined and trained crew, then break up the team because of something growing in a sailor’s womb!

I’m certain that not all pregnant sailors can prove thier husbands are the expectant fathers. If sex is available aboard ship (homosexual or heterosexual), someone will find a way to tap in to the supply. Generally, there will be a senior/junior relationship involved and the senior will find some way to reward the junior – preferential leave/liberty scheduled, watch assignments, billets, or advancement. That can’t be hidden from other members of the crew and leads to a breakdown in the chain of command and adversely impacts morale and discipline. It would probably also create a spirit of competition to see who can screw themselves into the best deal. Again, if I was the CO or XO, I wouldn’t want the aggravation.

A typical surface ship, with frequent liberty ports of call, is bad enough. Create the same situation on a nuclear-powered submarine that will be submerged for months at a time and you have simulated a prison. And I know of no Federal, State, our local jail that houses female and male prisoners in the same cell."

http://doesitallmatter2.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/keep-women-off-ships/; 11/18/10, 10:39 AM
Fen said...: Palladian: our military is apparently now populated by a bunch of quivering, sensitive pussies who blanch at the thought of various sexual and interpersonal proclivities.

Again with the homophobic card.

You make no attempt to understand where the opposition to your pet cause is coming from. Why should I extend you any courtesy?; 11/18/10, 10:42 AM
former law student said...: Yes. Your sexual/emotional attraction to my gunner means that I cannot trust your judgement re him when the bullets start flying.

Knowing how guys work, I'd suspect that fairly obvious same-sex attraction is happening in the military somewhere right now. Are the straights just shutting their eyes to it?; 11/18/10, 11:03 AM
Chef Mojo said...: @Fen:

As regards women serving on combatant vessels, there were always going to be problems. The events you describe happened nearly 20 years ago, and steps were taken to correct and minimize the problems; lessons learned.

Again, the military adapted to its mission.

In 1972, there was a race riot on USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) en route to Yankee Station in the Tonkin Gulf. 46 sailors were injured. It was miraculous that none were killed. Was this incident evidence that integration of the armed forces, which had occurred 22 years earlier, had proven a failure?

Of course not. The CNO, Elmo Zumwalt, provided imaginative leadership, and laid down the law to restore good order to the US Navy. With his famous Z-Grams, he effectively created a policy for zero tolerance of racism, which had a ripple effect throughout the rest of the services. He relied on providing education and fostering understanding between his sailors. Was it a perfect solution? Not by a long shot, but it did restore good order and moral on Navy ships.

Change. Adaptation. Carry on the mission. Succeed.

Everything else is noise.; 11/18/10, 11:31 AM
traditionalguy said...: Obama really should not ask for fear that the voters that the 2012 Dems need will later tell what side they are on. The same goes for the symbolic vote on the Dream Act that Reid is planning to win illegal alien's votes.; 11/18/10, 11:32 AM
Birkel said...: I think the move to change DADT during the lame duck session is the point of our host's post. (Please excuse the rhyme.)

With that in mind this seems an obvious ploy to regather "the base" by placating the gay community which did not vote for Democrats in the 2010 races as they had in the 2008 races.

Also, I think this is an effort to distract Republicans into the morass of social issues for which the country has little taste given current economic problems. Republicans should avoid making this a large issue by simply voting their consciences - whatever those might be - while criticizing Obama's lack of focus on economic issues.

IOW, Republicans would be much better suited to point to the obvious lack of seriousness a vote on DADT displays vis-a-vis voters' top concerns as expressed by election results and exit polls.

It's the economy, stupid!!; 11/18/10, 11:37 AM
Birkel said...: And I used the term "gay community" as if it had meaning in any real sense. It does not. I scold myself accordingly.

I should avoid the language of the Left who wishes to see everything in terms of identity politics -- which I abhor.; 11/18/10, 11:40 AM
MadisonMan said...: As I recall, a CG returning from deployment after the first Gulf War had 40% of its females pregnant. That means 40% of them had to be transferred and replaced.

I very rarely trust a sentence that starts As I recall.

For example, the reports of the USS Arcadia, which returned with 36 women pregnant -- out of 360? That's a pretty easy to calculate 10%. Yet a quick google search reveals bloggers saying that 31% came back pregnant. I couldn't find anything that said 40%. "Only" 22 of the 36 actually became pregnant while the ship was at sea.; 11/18/10, 11:41 AM
Joe said...: Republicans would be smart to oppose this only superficially, but enough to keep Congress distracted. Getting this off the table is one more annoying, meaningless distraction out of the way.; 11/18/10, 12:33 PM
1775OGG said...: President Obama is threatening to hold his breathe until the senate votes on DADT and Harry Reid is begging his colleagues to accede to Obama's demands.

Of course, I'd be willing to allow Obama to hold on until his face turns purple; which might be from rage instead.; 11/18/10, 1:40 PM
ken in tx said...: As I have alluded to before, the problem with this is not male gays, or lipstick lesbians. It is with bull dykes, many of whom are attracted to military life. They are rude, crude, and unsubdued. They will take undue advantage of any authority they have. They will harass any female they want or any male who gets in their way. They are worse than any sexually aggressive male boss you have ever had. I have seen it and it greatly reduces mission effectiveness.; 11/18/10, 1:57 PM
dbp said...: ""Only" 22 of the 36 actually became pregnant while the ship was at sea."

This rather argues against your case. Even if the 22 had husbands with them on board (which is pretty unlikely), sex would have been forbidden.; 11/18/10, 2:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Obama sees this as a priority why?; 11/18/10, 2:29 PM
Cedarford said...: ALthouse - "I been worrying about the mischief the Democrats might make in the lame-duck session, but if this is the one they choose, I will be happy."

Except that involves 23 Democrat Senators up for reelection. If they shove gay rights down the military's throats before the military has completed transition studies and studies on the impact on recruiting - and significant problems within the military develop - up to 12 of those Dem Senate seats are in jeopardy on just that issue.

Harry Reid (thanks Sharron!) will have a hard time rounding up 60 votes in a lame duck session.; 11/18/10, 3:01 PM
Cedarford said...: Joe said...
Republicans would be smart to oppose this only superficially, but enough to keep Congress distracted. Getting this off the table is one more annoying, meaningless distraction out of the way.
==============
No, the Republicans are best framing this as a "let the military finish their studies, don't hastily ram it down their throats in the middle of war" argument.

Dems proceed now, they will diss the military.

Problems happen later - few Democrats have thought this out well past "look at all the extra homosexual Arab translators we gain and more gay cause-people Hollywood dollars we gain" - Dems take a 2nd load of blame. As in if heterosexual people that would have enlisted but won't now if it means living with gays greatly outweighs the few flamboyant "out" homosexuals now likely to enlist.; 11/18/10, 3:08 PM
MadisonMan said...: This rather argues against your case. Even if the 22 had husbands with them on board (which is pretty unlikely), sex would have been forbidden.

My "case" was only that I didn't trust the 40% value fen used.

Is 22 a significant number? How many women total leave a duty tour over the course of the tour -- I think the one I cited was 7 months -- for one reason or another and how does it compare -- percentagewise -- to the number of men who leave for one reason or another?

That's the question that should be addressed. Is there is a big disparity between the sexes?

As for sex, yes the women obviously had sex -- with men. Were they on board ship when it happened?; 11/18/10, 3:11 PM
Bob said...: " All I care about is that in the future people who wish to serve their country will be able to do it without being worried about the consequences of an irrational and pointless rule."

Just remember that if you serve in the Air Force and have a waist larger than 38 inches you get booted.

Same for having tattoos displayed too prominently.

Or weight too much.; 11/18/10, 3:14 PM
Bob said...: " All I care about is that in the future people who wish to serve their country will be able to do it without being worried about the consequences of an irrational and pointless rule."

Just remember that if you serve in the Air Force and have a waist larger than 38 inches you get booted.

Same for having tattoos displayed too prominently.

Or weight too much.; 11/18/10, 3:15 PM
Michael said...: I long for the day when we do not have to talk about homosexuals. Without exception there is no group so self absorbed, so put upon, as homosexuals. I say let them do everything they would like, everything, on the condition that they , please please please, shut up.; 11/18/10, 3:20 PM
Beth said...: you'll have to get bathe with people you know are sexually attracted to you.

Anyone in a communal bathing and dressing situation ought to already assume there are people attracted to their own gender (though not necessarily to "you" per se - sorry, narcissus) present.; 11/18/10, 3:28 PM
Scott M said...: Anyone in a communal bathing and dressing situation ought to already assume there are people attracted to their own gender (though not necessarily to "you" per se - sorry, narcissus) present.

Should the residents of the women's barracks now assume that since they have a communal shower, the men are going to start showering there?; 11/18/10, 3:33 PM
Beth said...: Can someone tell me what openly gay means?

That's such an odd question. Do you stop even for a nanosecond and object when a colleague casually mentions going to a cookout or movie or shopping with his wife/girlfriend, or her husband/boyfriend? Do you pass someone's desk and see a picture of their spouse and children and think "MY GOD! Can't they keep it to themselves????"

How do I open my orientation?

Unless you're hiding a significant portion of your daily life, you don't open your orientation, because you've never had to close it.; 11/18/10, 3:33 PM
Beth said...: Scott, why would they assume that? You make no sense.; 11/18/10, 3:34 PM
Scott M said...: Oh, I make plenty of sense. I have many Venn diagrams and pie charts to prove it.; 11/18/10, 3:35 PM
dbp said...: MM, your point is well-taken re. the 40% figure. However, I think looking at pregnancy as just another disability which comes up misses an important point. Sex on board ship is forbidden, so 22 (presumably) unintended pregnancies reflects a serious break-down in discipline. All of this is probably tangential to homosexuality since the possible numbers of heterosexual liaisons has got to be far greater than the possible homosexual ones.; 11/18/10, 4:12 PM
Joe said...: RE: Openly gay

If it means constantly yacking about your boyfriend and how hot he is, then that's just as annoying as "openly hetero" people who won't shut up about their husband or wife or kids (the worse even use their stupid pet names for each other in conversation.)

Then there's the "openly divorced" who won't shut the hell up about their ex.; 11/18/10, 4:59 PM
AST said...: How do I open my orientation?

Here's how.; 11/18/10, 6:03 PM
John henry said...: Will they repeal the underlying law in the US Code? That makes expulsion of gays mandatory. Commanders will no longer have the authority to turn a blind eye as they can now do under DADT.

If they do not repeal the underlying law, how will repealing DADT make gays better off?

Several of us have asked this question multiple times. As far as I can tell, none of the defenders of DADT have ever answered it.

John Henry; 11/18/10, 9:52 PM
dick said...: In one move they can turn the military into European multicultural socialists.

The historical volunteer for the military has beliefs that prohibit him/her from accepting the gay lifestyle. So a percentage will not reenlist or will choose to not apply to an academy.

Hope we have time to recover when the social experiment fails. Joining the military is not a right. New question on entry tests, will you bunk or spoon with a gay, if it gets cold.

Soros will be happy he wants the Marines controlled by the rapists in the UN.

The thin gray line will be a rainbow.; 11/19/10, 12:09 AM