UPDATE: The Senate votes to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," 65-31.
“We righted a wrong,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut and a leader of the effort to end the ban. “Today we’ve done justice.”4 Senators did not vote. 3 Republicans — Bunning, Gregg, and Hatch. 1 Democrat: Joe Manchin. All of the no votes were Republican. Republicans voting yes were: Scott Brown, Burr (of NC), Susan Collins, John Ensign, Mark Steven Kirk (in Barack Obama's old seat), Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snow, George Voinovich.
I don't like all this lame duck action, but I'm greatly pleased to see the awful old law repealed at last.
AND: John McCain raged, as Dana Milbank describes it:
McCain famously said in 2006 that he would support repeal once military leaders recommended it. Instead, he led the opposition to repeal. McCainologists in the Capitol speculate that on this and other issues he's driven less by policy consideration than by personal animosity....
On Saturday, McCain's rage was all the more striking because the general tone of the debate was tame. Republicans were mostly defensive, objecting not to the service of homosexuals in the military but to procedures and other technical matters. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said of the repeal: "Should it be done at some point in time? Maybe so, but in the middle of a military conflict is not the time to do it."...
When it came time for his closing argument before the day's key vote, McCain spoke for only a few seconds: "Today's a very sad day. The commandant of the United States Marine Corps says when your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything distracting. . . . I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen and I'll tell you why. You go up to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Marines are up there with no legs, none. You've got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs."
McCain turned and, without another word, walked into the cloakroom.
Posts
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260My question remains about silencing soldiers from expressing moral and religious disapproval of homosexual behavior.
How will expressing these thoughts affect
1. Unit cohesion
2. Unit morale
3. Personal morale?
Fen is comfortable with all manner of despicable slurs. It's his specialty. Well, that and desperation.
You would think he'd be better at it after all this practice.
My question remains about silencing soldiers from expressing moral and religious disapproval of homosexual behavior.
I'm curious what currently happens to soldiers who inform other soldiers that black people are mentally and morally inferior to white people.
Do they get "silenced"? Because, gee, what a shame.
"Do they get "silenced"? Because, gee, what a shame."
How quickly libertarians become statists these days.
Why the exclamation point?
How does being openly gay enhance the mission readiness? I don't think that some on should be discharged because someone outs him/her, but I'm not really sure what "openly" entails. Do they get to wear rainbow patches. If someone else uses the word "fag," will he get disciplined? What do they get to flout now that they're out?
I see that the (at least) six lameduck Senators who are either retiring or lost a re-election bid provided the margin of victory on the cloture vote.
"I don't think that some on should be discharged because someone outs him/her..."
Then you support the repeal of DADT, because that's what the policy did, mandated that outed gay people be discharged. And the policy was used by people for retributive purposes.
"...but I'm not really sure what "openly" entails."
It means that if you happen to mention your sexual preference or your partner or your personal life in a casual setting, the way every straight soldier can and does, that information can't be used as the basis for tossing you out, like it could under DADT.
"Do they get to wear rainbow patches. If someone else uses the word "fag," will he get disciplined?"
Do soldiers currently get to say "nigger" with impunity?
"What do they get to flout [sic] now that they're out?"
The same things that straight soldiers have always gotten to "flaunt", information about their lives to their friends and comrades-in-arms, if they want to.
Kudos to Palladian for sticking it out (no pun intended ;) for two nights straight with this issue.
America won and We won indeed..
You got what what you wished for.
I question how much things will change in combat units. If you look to a civilian analogy, professional sports or police forces, very few male athletes or police are openly gay. For female athletes and police, it's more acceptable to be lesbian.
So, most likely, gay soldiers in the more "macho" units will keep a low profile and there will be a de facto "don't ask don't tell" situation and things will not be as "bad" as opponents feared or as "good" as proponents hoped for.
Palladian said...
In other words, WE WON. haha.
What all the Lefties said when ZeroCare passed.
And we know how that's working out.
PS Now note suddenly, it WE vs everybody else.
Our military should be about national defense not politically correct social policy.
Expect to see this headline very soon:
"Army Medic Court-Martialled: Would Not Render Aid to Fallen Comrade He Believed Had AIDS."
Not justifying anything, just sayin'...
let me get this straight (no pun intended)....
"the Marines are going to fall apart".....
What then is being said is that the current and past crop of Marines, who go through the training and get the uniform, are in reality two types...those who can and those who are gay who the Marines "have let slide through".
That's funny. I never noticed two sets of Marines before - I mean I never thought that the Marines let anyone get through basic training who wasn't up to it.
Frankly, this idea that now that gays are can be open about it will let down the standards is just about the dumbest thing going...even for the nutjobs on this blog.
I'm glad DADT is gone.
I do worry about gay rights advocates trying to fuck up the military and its meritocratic promotions.
But you cannot punish soldiers because "advocates" for "their side" are idiots. Otherwise, black soldiers would be tarred due to the existence of Sharpton,
The military has avoided AA promotions for black soldiers and I suspect they will for gays as well.
damikesc said...
The military has avoided AA promotions for black soldiers and I suspect they will for gays as well.
I used to subscribe to the Stars and Stripes magazine. There is an affirmative action program in all of the services for Blacks and women. There has been for a long time.
One more step in weakening the cohesiveness and fighting effectiveness of our military. First we allow women in, then we allow illegal aliens who aren't even U.S. citizens (shades of the decline of the Roman empire) and now we allow homosexuals.
All that liberal romantic idealism about equality is fine and good in times when the existence of the country isn't at stake. Sooner or later it will be, and then we'l find we have a feminized, divided military force run largely by politically correct or affirmative action commanders whose first priority is equality rather than ability to win wars, and we will pay the price the hard way for this fatal liberal equality nonsense.
For black soldiers, yes. But not for women.
There most certainly is a social promotion in the services for women. I've been watching the units that I served with and I've noticed a continuing advancement of women officers through the ranks. I've talked to a number of veterans who are back in civilian life and they'll tell you how many women that they served under.
"Sooner or later it will be, and then we'l find we have a feminized, divided military force run largely by politically correct or affirmative action commanders whose first priority is equality rather than ability to win wars, and we will pay the price the hard way for this fatal liberal equality nonsense."
Which will dovetail nicely with the propensity of modern American military commanders/politicians to fight wars of public-relations...only with guns...instead of what war is supposed to be: making the other side suffer horribly until they're either all dead, or begging for surrender on whatever terms you're willing to extend.
What it means is that if a homosexual makes a move on you, and you warn him to back off or risk a knuckle sandwich, you are now the one who will get courtmartialed.
Actually, probably not. Courts martial goes on record, so I expect memoranda to go out from Washington to take care of such cases by company punishment as much as possible, and in any case to avoid written reference to any sexual aspect of the offense.
Ann, the Military recommendations were not based on the military approval, but by skewered polling which fit the outcome our political leaders wanted.
While personally, I feel if someone is gay and they want to serve they should be able to do so. But I am not a member of that group who is in uniform, so my opinion may not be the best for our national security, given that if you read the polling, infantry, was overwhelming against such repeal.
Now the time has come for Gays and Lesbians to start policing themselves and take action against other gays and lesbians who compromise unit cohesion and our national security.
Will they be able to do so without being ostracized by their ilk? Will the Left's Uncle Tom moniker for black conservatives, become updated to the Aunt Charley's for conservative gays who call out those gays who violate military rules?
This action was not well thought out by this administration and I don't think given our current state of being in a war, the right thing. Dr. John's song, Right Place Wrong Time, comes to mind.
Bradley Manning still needs to be discussed. He is gay, he served in the military and he compromised national security and from the limited data that has come out, it was based on rather childish and immature frustrations about failed relationships.
I won't blanket all in the gay military community with his actions, but avoiding addressing that issue leaves an unhealed wound, that will only fester as more comes out and this political stunt takes effect.
We could do better than we have done.
Revenant: You would think he'd be better at it after all this practice
You're such a coward.
Don't Ask Don't Tell is not over, only the object has shifted: Instead of a small minority of homosexuals who had to keep their orientation a secret, now the majority will have to keep quiet about their religious and moral orientations.
Some orientations are more equal than others.
Allen, really?
Man, that's disappointing.
I hope the military's stereotype of being anal about most things is in effect for their planning involving this change.
damikesc,
It might be disappointing, but this has been the policy for a long time.
Something tells me that in five years we're going to look back and wonder where all the gays in the military actually are. beucase it will turn out that they dind't want to so much serve, as to disrupt the military becasue they weren't allowed in. Or we'll be seeing a lawsuit from a transgendered male wearing a dress on base and demanding that he be allowed to serve openly. It's not about the service, but the fight.
Once the fight is over, there's no reason for gays to actually join the military.
"Once the fight is over, there's no reason for gays to actually join the military."
Nah. There are still plenty of reasons: love of country, familial tradition, adventure, acquiring useful skills, etc.
There was a gay guy I knew pretty well in my unit. He was simply a patriotic young man who was fired up about September 11th. He's still in now and serving honorably. My lesbian cousin joined back in the 1980's, in part to be one of the boys, in part because she wanted to serve, and in part because our family has a tradition of joining the Army.
Believe it or not, not every homosexual man or woman is a subversive San Francisco activist. I mean, I think that something like a quarter of them even voted for President Bush in 2004!
Eeeeeeeew. Gay.
How quickly libertarians become statists these days.
Uh, Pogo... we're talking about people who work for the government.
Any policy regarding speech by government employees, whether it restricts it, encourages it, or ignores it, is obviously going to be "statist". They ARE the state!
Army Medic Court-Martialled: Would Not Render Aid to Fallen Comrade He Believed Had AIDS
Er... shouldn't he be?
Wow the comments from the pro repeal people in this thread do not encourage the idea that 1) they have given the slightest thought to what military service is about, or 2) take the issue of how the military will have to adjust to this change in a time of war seriously.
If anything, the thread demonstrates that the gay or pro-repeal commenters don't care about the potential problems, have given little if any thought to the impact on our serving forces, and are therefore ill-suited to have anything to do with decisions on the military.
First we allow women in, then we allow illegal aliens who aren't even U.S. citizens (shades of the decline of the Roman empire)
Then the US has been in decline at last for the last half-century. Illegal aliens were subject to the draft during the Vietnam War, and have been required to register for the draft at least since them.
http://www.sss.gov/MUST.HTM
take the issue of how the military will have to adjust to this change in a time of war seriously.
I was thinking this would lead to the elimination of bar soap in the showers, but I fear switching to liquid soap would send the wrong signal.
People railed at the injustice of homosexuals having to be silent about their orientation. It is utterly predictable that now, those who have reservations will be forced into silence and secrecy.
It is a weird society that ends a so-called witch hunt against a few percent of its troops by switching to a witch hunt against the majority of its soldiers.
I will be happily surprised to see my prediction not come true.
that 1) they have given the slightest thought to what military service is about, or 2) take the issue of how the military will have to adjust to this change in a time of war seriously.
The argument has been going on for as long as the web has existed. If you want to see the serious arguments for and against, Google them. What you have here is a bunch of people who are happy they won and a bunch of people who are pissed that they lost. Nobody's offering interesting, original, or well-thought-out arguments.
On a side note, it would be easier to take that "time of war" bit seriously if any of the people making it had favored repeal before we went to war. As it stands it looks like "we're at war!" is just the position they retreated to when "gay officers will order innocent hetero enlisted men to shower with them" became untenable.
switching to a witch hunt against the majority of its soldiers.
Is there a reason you believe the majority of our soldiers are homophobes?
We can imagine an ideal society but we can't build it. At least so far in my lifetime. Of course DADT is a terrible law, and a particularly degrading one. But I don't feel celebratory today, I feel pretty sober minded.
We can imagine a military free of prejudice and rancor but at least one terrible occasion has suggested that we cannot build one of those either. Major Hasan, who openly gave powerpoint presentations on his love of jihad, killed 13 military members because no one was brave enough to believe him. (Islam is peace!) Soldiers were reduced to throwing chairs at him to stop him because guns are banned at the base.(Guns are bad!)
So let's pause and consider some empathy for the old warrior McCain. He fears that a few eggs will be broken to make this omelet as well. I just hope that we can keep uppermost in our hearts what is good for the country as well as for our interest group as we go forward.
I see DBP has arrived to stick up for the busybody contingent.
Don'tcha know that our greatest liberty is not to be able to follow our own happiness, but to poke our nose into what other people do so as to offer our approval or disapproval.
Pecchia's fitting in with his fellow Puritan busybodies quite well.
Based on the obviously unrepresentative sample of pro-repeal advocates writing here, it's clear victory for, let us say, "sexual liberty," is a defeat for religious liberty.
And Revenant lets slip that from now on, anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful is the moral equivalent of a racist and a bigot, and/or a "homophobe."
FYI, yes, I'm well aware being in the military means some subordination of the rights one enjoys as a civilian (gee, wasn't that the offensive justification for DADT? nevermind); nevertheless, the military has always had a chaplain service and gone to great lengths to accommodate service-members' religious observance.
Expect conflict on this very point as Revenant and others of his viewpoint seek to silence all they label bigots and homophobes--i.e., anyone who believes homosexual behavior is sinful. The new witch hunt won't work, but it will be ugly.
And of course, it'll do wonders for enlistment and readiness!
The immorality of homosexuality is at the core of no one's faith except the Phelpses.
Revenant, for what it's worth I didn't think DADT was a good idea when Clinton (and Colin Powell) came up with it just as I don't think repealing it during an ongoing land war is a good idea now.
Better would have been to do away with the whole thing in the mid-1990s when they passed this in the first place. At least then we weren't actively engaged with troops on the ground facing daily live fire.
You ever spend any time in the military, much less a USMC squad bay Revenant? People that think this is going to be just peachy squeaky easy greasy are living in a dream world. It's going to be difficult and there will be conflict among the troops. Now, you might say fine, run the bigots (and flamers of course) off, but that pretty well does away with the idea that this is not going to adversely affect our abilities during this war wouldn't you think?
If I was an "openly" gay male just about the last place I'd want to be bunking is a Marine Corps squad bay. Depending, of course, on what is meant by "openly gay", which is something I am very suspicious about both in intent and in ultimate practice.
The way proponents talk about this (letters to loved ones, putting a picture on their desk, my civil rights!) is so stunningly ignorant as to leave those of us who served pretty well speechless and shaking our heads.
And the failure of supporters to address it in terms of how it will improve our military, how it addresses the needs of the military, demonstrates a complete lack of seriousness by the supporters, at best.
/shrug. The military will deal with it, the just shouldn't have to deal with it now, again, in my opinion.
@Revenant Is there a reason you believe the majority of our soldiers are homophobes?
If the definition of "homophobe" is one who thinks it is a bad idea to allow open homosexuals to serve in combat arms and other areas of the military that lack privacy, then yes, the majority would fall under that definition.
I have said before that it would be fine to try it out in the parts of the military where service is more like a normal job and then expand from there depending on how it goes. This seems radical or unreasonable? Really?
The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women
GMay wrote:
A much smaller percentage of that population is only going to be considered as possible candidates for mliitary service.
Living in new york, I know a lot of gay people and not one of them is beating down the door to joiin the military. The pool is already tiny, but the gays who wantt o be in the military is even tinier.
Even the village people didn't have a military guy. THey had the cowboy and the police officer and the indian (!) but no military guy. And that's pretty emblematic.
And Revenant lets slip that from now on, anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful is the moral equivalent of a racist and a bigot, and/or a "homophobe."
Um, no. You're not the "moral equivalent" of a homophobe and a bigot. You're a homophobe and a bigot, full stop. You are, however, the moral and intellectual equivalent of a racist, yes.
And I didn't "let it slip".
People that think this is going to be just peachy squeaky easy greasy are living in a dream world
I work in the private sector. Every company I've ever worked for has taken the following two-phased approach to people with strong moral objections to the private lives of their coworkers:
(1): Shut the fuck up.
and
(2): Get back to work
with a subtext of
(2a): No, seriously, get the fuck back to work.
This approach works. And honestly, who exactly is it who joined the Marines expecting their delicate feelings to be shielded from unpleasantness?
I have said before that it would be fine to try it out in the parts of the military where service is more like a normal job and then expand from there depending on how it goes. This seems radical or unreasonable? Really?
Drumming loyal and competent soldiers out of the military because they like having sex with the wrong kind of consenting adults seems radical and unreasonable.
I don't know how I feel about your suggested policy. What I do know is that it is a moot point; you might have suggested it, but so far as I know nobody in Congress ever did. The Republican Party could have enacted that nine years ago if they'd wanted to. They didn't want to. The only problem social conservatives had with DADT was the DA part.
Revenant,
You are missing the whole point of why there was a DADT in the first place. Until DADT anyone who was found to be gay was drummed out of the service by following the rules of UCMJ. With DADT gays could serve with no problems so long as they did not broadcast that they were gay or make it obvious to people policing the area (not cleaning but MP's, etc). Now unless the UCMJ has been changed which I have not read the bill to see, then the gays are back being subject to getting kicked out just for being gay again and without the potential protection of DADT. Were those writing up this legislation smart enough to change the UCMJ as part of this law? Don't know but I would almost bet they missed this point because after all who reads the laws they vote for, at least in this congress and senate.
And as to who started pushing the kicking out of gays which ended up with DADT? Our favorite ex-president Jimmuh Cartuh from Georgia. Until then it worked pretty much like officers and enlisted at the Pentagon. It is almost funny to watch them walk up to the door. The officers look off to one side and the enlisted look off to the other so that they don't have to walk with a constant salute. Until Jimmuh both sides just ignored the question unless it was made obvious or someone claimed to be gay to get out of the service. To protect the gays DADT was passed so that you almost had to stand up and claim to be gay or be as open as the guys at the Folsom St Fair in SF. Now that DADT has been repealed what is the status of the protection of gays in the military. Did they change the UCMJ to get rid of the automatic discharge of gays who were open about it?
dick,
I'd be curious to hear what part of the UCMJ you think will authorize prosecuting homosexuals.
Every company I've ever worked for has taken the following two-phased approach to people with strong moral objections to the private lives of their coworkers...
And that demonstrates the point perfectly. This is not analogous to private sector employment. Furthermore, this whole issue is about the apparent need gay people feel to make their private lives public.
And honestly, who exactly is it who joined the Marines expecting their delicate feelings to be shielded from unpleasantness?
Unpleasantness like keeping your mouth shut about your personal predilections? The discomfort of not being able to casually talk about what a nice ass the Marine next to you has? The people that are pushing this apparently think that Revenant. That's what this is all about.
Removal of DADT will allow homosexuals to be open about their orientation. They still will not be permitted to have sex though:
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.
(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.
Explanation.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
The current bill does call for:
(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Does anybody think congress critters will vote on a rule allowing sodomy in the military? Not unless they bury it in a 2,000 page omnibus package.
Does anybody think congress critters will vote on a rule allowing sodomy in the military?
Lawrence v. Texas allows sodomy everywhere -- is there a need unique to the military to keep a soldier's wife from giving him a blowjob?
A UCMJ cleanup of obsolete laws seems indicated. The Illinois General Assembly led the way by repealing its sodomy law (for consenting adults) in 1961, coincidentally the year Obama was born.
Revenant:
Thanks for being plain: all those who believe (as Christianity teaches) that homosexual behavior is sinful, are bigots. Let the witch hunt begin!
Also, private companies do not, usually, tell their employees to STFU about their religious views 24/7. The military can. Also, civilian employees of said companies can quit on the spot. Service members cannot. You seem unclear on these distinctions; because otherwise your analogy is clearly inapt.
Revenant wrote:
I work in the private sector. Every company I've ever worked for has taken the following two-phased approach to people with strong moral objections to the private lives of their coworkers:
(1): Shut the fuck up.
and
(2): Get back to work
ISn't DADT basically telling gays to shut the fuck up and get back to work? Why are you ok with it in the private sector but think that gays should scream out "Im here and I'm queer" in the miiitary. What does their gayness bring to their ability to serve as a soldier? And why can't they simply shut up about their sexual lives and get back to work?
Gays define themselves by their sexuality alone. The army makes a point that they don't want sex there. SO then why can't gays keep their gayness at home? Now they are going to serve openly as gays? What does that mean? Since they define themselves sexually doesn't that bring sex into the equation? DADT is basically the military saying shut up about your sexuality and get back to work.
Why are you not ok with than?
Will pre op shemales get to serve openly and house with females and wear female unifomrs while they still have their dicks? And can transvestites walk arouund the barracks wearing their dresses? is that what it means to serve openly?
Unpleasantness like keeping your mouth shut about your personal predilections?
A brief window into a world where Marines can't stomach hearing people talk about their "personal predilections":
"Sergeant, Sergeant! Private Smith told me he had a girlfriend! Then Corporal Jones mentioned his wife and, ugh, said he was going to have *sex* with her when we got back from deployment! And then Private Carter invited me to his... WEDDING! Make them stop telling me about their personal predilections, Sergeant! Make them STOP!"
... and that's how you think the Marines should work, is it? Of course not. You're fine with Marines talking about their loved ones and their sex lives; it is just homosexuals who turn your stomach. Well, man up.
Let the witch hunt begin!
I love how much Christian conservatives have in common with the political Left. Criticism = persecution in both your minds.
ISn't DADT basically telling gays to shut the fuck up and get back to work?
Not even remotely.
Keep in mind that "don't ask, don't tell" is just a nickname for the law, not a literal description of it. Under DADT the military was barred from actively pursuing homosexual troops, but was both able and required to act on credible evidence of homosexuality. So it isn't just that, e.g., a gay Marine couldn't mention he had a boyfriend. He had to actively *conceal* that fact, along with all other evidence of homosexuality. If, say, an officer saw him off-base, on leave, kissing said boyfriend, then that's it: career over.
It is the difference between "if you spend time on the job haranguing your coworkers to convert to Christianity, you will be disciplined and possibly fired" and "if it comes to your attention that you're Christian you'll be fired".
Post a Comment