Excerpt from transcript of CNN Republican Presidential Debate
June 5, 2007
SPRADLING: Congressman Paul, a question for you.
Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays
and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end don't
ask/don't tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S.
military?
PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy.
And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people
as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their
rights as belonging to groups.
We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get
our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be
treated the same way.
So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it
should be dealt with.
But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be
dealt with.
So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the
understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with
this very important problem.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, I want you to weigh in as well.
Do you believe it's time to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the United
States military?
HUCKABEE: Wolf, I think it's already covered by the Uniform Code of Military
Conduct. I think that's what Congressman Paul was saying: It's about
conduct; it's not about attitude.
But I'd like to ask you. You said a moment ago that you were going to all
give us a chance to deal with the issue of immigration.
BLITZER: We're going to come back to that.
HUCKABEE: And I hope you'll do that.
BLITZER: We will. We'll come back to immigration.
HUCKABEE: You held us to it, and now I want to hold you to it, so...
BLITZER: We're going to come back...
HUCKABEE: ... if you could give us that opportunity.
BLITZER: We're going to come back to immigration.
But right now, we're talking about allowing gays to serve openly in the
military. But you're opposed to that?
HUCKABEE: I just said I think it's a matter -- it's not -- you don't punish
people for their attitudes; you punish them if their behavior creates a
problem. And it's already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct.
BLITZER: So you wouldn't change existing policy.
HUCKABEE: What?
BLITZER: You wouldn't change existing policy.
HUCKABEE: I don't think that I would. I think it's already covered by the
existing policy that we do have, in fact.
BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, recently we've learned that several talented
trained linguists -- Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers -- trained by
the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on
terrorism, were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or
lesbians.
Is that, in your mind, appropriate?
GIULIANI: This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this.
Back in 1994 we went through this. And it created a tremendous amount of
disruption. Colin Powell, I think, was still the head of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff before he left at the beginning of the Clinton administration.
He came to the view that this was a good policy.
And I think in time of war, in a time where we're trying to deal with this
transition to a new kind of warfare that we have to be fighting -- and we
haven't gotten all the way there yet. We need a hybrid army, we need to look at
nation-building as part of what we have to teach our military. I don't think
this would be the right time to raise these issues.
BLITZER: Thank you.
GIULIANI: And I think we should rely on the judgment of our commanders in a
situation like this. They know what's disruptive and what's not. And at a
time of war, you don't make fundamental changes like this.
BLITZER: Thank you, Mayor.
Governor Romney, the mayor referred to the don't ask/don't tell policy,
which was implemented during the Clinton administration, after Bill Clinton
became president.
In 1994, you were quoted as saying that you advocated gays being able to
serve openly and honestly in our nation's military.
The question to you is, do you still feel that way?
ROMNEY: No, actually when I first heard of the don't ask/don't tell policy I
thought it sounded awfully silly and didn't think that'd be very effective,
and I turned out to be wrong.
It's been the policy now in the military for, what, 10, 15 years? And it
seems to be working.
And I agree with what Mayor Giuliani said, that this is not the time to put
in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on.
I wouldn't change it at this point. We can look at it down the road. But it
does seem to me that we have much bigger issues as a nation that we ought to
be talking about than that policy right now.
BLITZER: Senator McCain, you've been involved in military matters virtually
your whole life. What do you say?
MCCAIN: We have the best-trained, most professional, best- equipped, most
efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country. And I'm
proud of every one of them.
(APPLAUSE)
There just aren't enough of them. So I have to rely on our military
leadership, in whom we place the responsibility to lead these brave young Americans
in combat as we speak.
So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. It is
working, my friends. The policy is working.
And I am convinced that that's the way we can maintain this greatest
military. As much as I revere the greatest generation, as much as I love my own
generation, this is the very best. Let's not tamper with them.
BLITZER: Is there anyone here who believes gays and lesbians should be
allowed to serve openly in the United States military?
If you do, speak up now.
Silence
Â
I don't understand why discrimination is still permitted. I don't understand why harrassment of gays in the military is permitted even though it is expressly forbidden by the DADT policy.
For more information on DADT .
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 127
Mike, when you are dating or married, you are able to discuss your life with your spouse/partner with your co-workers. It is not about declaring our sexuality, it is about being treated equally. As a gay person in the military or in the workforce, if you are not able to be who you truly are it makes life very difficult. So while everyone else is discussing home life, you have to be quiet and not participate, or lie.
The whole thing smacks of people being blackballed from clubs because someone found out that their grandmother was Jewish, or that they're part black.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the concept of cowards. If ANY soldier is allowed to talk about his girlfriend or her boyfriend, then ALL soldiers should be allowed to talk about their social life, regardless of sexual orientation.
Anything else is hypocrisy and a shame to America's ideals.
It's pandering to their constituency plain and simple. Principles have nothing to do with it.
Mike, you probably don't work with enough gay people. Relationships are a common topic in breakroom/lunchroom discussions. I haven't heard graphic descriptions of sex but I've heard plenty about relationships. Some of them are between people of the same sex. It's the damned San Francisco values. They are the norm in this area. It's another reason that the Bay Area should secede from the rest of the country. It would be the right thing to do. Why shove the SF Agenda down people's throats. (pun intended)
Oh, yeah, I'm a Hillbilly, and we don't care what or who you do, as long as you stay off our property and out of our business.
Do your coworkers wear a wedding ring? Do they have pictures of their spouses? Do they talk about their weekends? Do they have people from the office over for dinner when their spouse is there?
All of these things are the equivalent of flaunting one's heterosexuality.
It's not about declaring one's sexuality, that is done constantly by most people in subtle ways every day. It's about having to actively hide those things, to have to devote a part of your conscious thought to screening your words, changing pronouns, lying, hiding every day. I, personally, think that kind of sanctioned deception among coworkers is more dangerous to morale than a gay soldier who is able to be honest about who he or she is would be.
Come on Blitzer, some follow-up would have been nice.
This has nothing to do with wearing your sexuality out on your sleve.
My husband comes up in conversation all the time, wherever I am. I can't imagine not being able to speak about someone so important to me.
Many changes to policy have been made during this war. Why not this one?
"This means that if you do one of the following, you could be involuntarily separated before your term of service ends:
(1) Homosexual acts. You engage in, attempt to engage in, or solicit another to
engage in a homosexual act or acts. A "homosexual act" means touching a person of your same sex or allowing such a person to touch you for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires. (For example, hand-holding...)"
And guys, leave Mike E. alone - he's a sweetheart ♥
But having that opinion and supporting unfair laws and policies are two different things. One's personal beliefs should not entirely dictate one's political and social actions. Just 'cause I'm agin it don't mean I think it ought to be against the law.
Laws and policies should support the freedom and safety for everyone, not cater to people's likes and dislikes.
John M., I do believe you're right - and that Heterosexuals focus so much on a person's sexual orientation if they're gay, or bi, that I believe that it's actually the heterosexuals defining homosexuals by sexual orientation.
Plus, all the stupid gay jokes.
Anyone would become self-conscious and defensive.
America is not going to leave people who are gay alone without mocking them. so declaring your gay is pointless and could effect the squad in the battlefield. I personally feel that being gay is a HIGE sin. but it is not mean we need to discriminate them.
In re the military: The stereotype of same sex sex aboard ships is as old as long distance sailing. Achilles seriously damaged the attack on Troy by sulking about Patroclus. Hercules left the Argonauts because his lover went missing on an island they stopped at. In the Greek cases the problem was not that there was same sex sex but that Achilles and Hercules put their personal problems above the welfare of the group.
Jacob, if you wish to discuss whether homosexuality is right or wrong then write your own article. This article is about DADT.
Mike again, it is an issue. There have been many critical people dismissed due to DADT. Do a google search on the subject.
Just as an experiment, Try to go through the next week actively hiding your heterosexuality. Do and say nothing that might even be remotely construed as being heterosexual. Scrub every bit of evidence of it from your daily life and interactions with others.
Barak Obama: When asked about DADT, he said, "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country."
Hilary Clinton: Is on record that she would repeal it. I couldn't find a quick quote.
Joe Biden: "I would just as president of the United States end it. I would issue an executive order saying there will be no discrimination whatsoever in the military and everybody will be held to the uniform military code—so that if two gay people engage in illicit activity on the base, they're gone; just like if two married people engage on the base, they're gone."
Dennis Kucinich: "It starts with standing up for marriage equality… the fact is the underlying issue of marriage equality is what truly establishes rights for our people. When you have marriage equality, issues like "don't ask, don't tell" disappear. As long as you don't have marriage equality, you have a two-tiered society, one with rights for one group of people, and not rights for another. I want full rights for people who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender—full rights, period. We can set a higher tone in our policy, if it's not an issue in our larger society, then it's not an issue in our military."
Bill Richardson: "I would pass legislation to end it, but I would also say to my military commanders, 'There is not going to be any discrimination against gays and lesbians the military.'"
Mike Gavel: "When I met with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, I said, 'I'll do an executive order,' and they said, 'Senator, you can't do that, it's a law.' I said, 'Well, you just watch me.' Let me tell you, I've learned one thing about military people, those stars can come off as easy as they go on when you're Commander in Chief"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20070605/co_po/democraticcandidatesdetaildontaskstrategies
"won't be living my life as anything but how i am, and i suggest everyone else do that" That's exactly what folks are asking for with the repeal of dadt.
anyway, time to search out dinner. seacrest out.
GIULIANI: This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this.
When, Mr. Mayor, IS the time to deal with disruptive issues? If not when you're trying to convince us that you're da Man to solve all our problems for us, then when?
There's nothing wrong with any of the candidates for candidacy -- Republican, Democratic, or Temperance -- that a few ccs of sodium pentothal wouldn't cure. Just answer the damned questions!
On another note, Jacob, do you truly feel being gay or lesbian is "against nature" or were you saying that to make a point?
We have been handicapped in our "missions" by an acute lack of persons fluent in middle eastern languages. Then, we fire almost twenty of them because someone reported seeing them in a gay bar, dating another guy, whatever the hell they were doing.
And, the policy is another illustration of "putting prejudice first" instead of dealing with the issues.
The armed services have already gone on record as saying that each branch could adapt to the inclusion ofopenly gay and lesbian service memebers, and polling shows that this is far less an issue among troops than the few bigots like ramzie would suggest.
We are living in the dark ages in this country. Being gay is not a disease for heaven's sake.
Hopefully the pendulum is swinging.....
Good article, Miss Pirate Princess. 'bout time Gather recognized your genius.
But the demonization of gays, advertent or inadvertent ("Will & Grace" certaintly made me want to shoot Jack, but not because he's gay, merely because he's an asshole) merely strengthens the stereotypes. On another thread a couple of months back I took part in a discussion over whether it's the sex or the love between gays and lesbians that disgusts straights. Most of the gays thought it was the latter, but I think that the late writer and flaming queen Quentin Crisp had it right; it's just that straight men know know what is involved in homosexual sex, and are scared and disgusted by it. That's all it is, but it has been so blown out of proportion (pardon the pun) with talk of a "homosexual agenda" (yes there it one, and it's called "basic human and civil rights") and the religious aspects (Christ, of course, has nothing to say on the subject; it's all Paul, who is thought by many scholars to have been a latent homosexual himself).
When I was in boot camp, we had an indoctrination session on homosexuality. "How do you spot one?" asked the Chief Petty Officer in charge of the class. The usual stereotypes were offered by my fellow recruits: "They lisp", "The run like girls", "They dress funny". I stuck my hand up: "You can't spot them." "Your're right", but suspicious, he continued. "How do you know that?" "Chief, I've worked in Hollywood for five years."
Order yours today.
Thanks, Wendy. Your support is always appreciated.
When I served, everything seemed OK, until we had a new specialist come in who was fairly obviously gay. His behavior ruined morale in my platoon.
Up until that point, I had no feeling about the issue one way or the other. I felt as many of you do - that sexual orientation was the least of the Army's worries..............until it happened under my command. Then the shit really hit the fan. Now this was before the DODT code was implemented, so we didn't have any way to handle this inevitable situation. The guy in question was soft, and didn't do well in many of the physical actions we were involved in, but he was great with computers. Before too long, I started hearing rumors. Then one morning he shows up at 0600 all beat up. He'd had leave the night before and went into town, only to open his mouth and get his ass whooped by some of the locals. He requested a transfer, but before that happened, he was pulled out of my unit and hauled off to Fort Bliss for trial.
A couple of months later I heard that he'd admitted to being gay and had been dishonorably discharged.
Now from my standpoint, he was treated poorly from Day One. But on the other hand, it was clear that he was not Army material. I ran into this 3 more times during my military career (5 years) and all 3 ended just as badly. I was actually sad to say that homosexuality in the military does not turn out well because of the demographics of the recruits. Many conservative and Southern recruits, not many liberals or gays. Should the policy be changed? Nope, because then you couldn't recruit from your main base of people. Sorry if I'm a killjoy, but I just figured that you should know how it really is in the military. I would say that an overwhelming number (90+% or more) think that DODT is perfectly fine just the way it is.
Only the ACLU and non-military activists seem to think there's something wrong with this policy. Of course, they won't have to deal with the aftermath of changing this policy either…………if they're successful.
They didn't want to be discharged and most said they would reenlist in a second if they could.
Actually most men and women actually serving today could care less...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976866490
In the gather article you linked us to, you quote 365gay.com, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund (who the hell?), and Marty Meehan as informational sources for your response?
Puuuullllleeeeezzzzeeee!
At least try to be somewhat reasonable in your sourcing. What do you think obviously gay activists are going to say when asked about this lightning rod topic?
Having gays in the military ruins morale. I can tell you that with a clean conscience from having experience in real life...............not as part of some poll.
I've heard on CNN that supposedly 58 Arabic-speaking translators have been dismissed from the military because they openly pronounced their homosexuality. I wonder how many of those just wanted to avoid going to Iraq or staying in Iraq?
Besides, the number is only 58. It's not even a number large enough to be worthy of discussion. Why would gay & lesbian activists even push this low number? Are they REALLY concerned with military performance and readiness in Iraq? Or are they just choosing this statistic because it irritates the more conservative elements in our society? Either way, its another scam.
*Microsoft Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., eToys Inc.
*Bureau of the Census, USA
*Philip Morris EEMA
*MCI Telecommunications, Frontier Cellular
*Chrysler Corporation
*United Nations, Office of the General Secretary, (Global Poll, 22 nations), Data Base Marketing (South Korea), American Chamber of Commerce Egypt, Egypt's International Economic Forum
*Reuters North America and Latin America, New York Post, USA Today, Fox Television Network, Gannett News Service, Campaigns & Elections, Bulletin News Network, Cincinnati Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Buffalo News, and daily newspapers in Syracuse, Albany, Rochester, Binghamton, Utica, Watertown, Ithaca, and Poughkeepsie,
*National Bank and Trust Company, Savings Bank of Utica, Herkimer County Trust, First Source Federal Credit Union
*Blue Cross and Blue Shield
*St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Scranton Medical Center, Cortland Memorial Hospital, St. Lukes Memorial Hospital, Slocum Dickson Medical Center, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Bassett Healthcare, Northeast Medical Center
*National Environmental Trust
*ACCESS of Dearborn. MI,
*Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute (museum)
*New World Foundation, North Country Tracking Service
*New York State Department of Labor
*American Civil Rights Institute
*ConMed Corporation, Welch-Allyn (medical manufacturers)
*Oneida Indian Nation
*National Association of Manufacturers
*Labor Research Institute
58 is a lot when we don't have enough. Most want to continue to serve in the military. Those are only the linguists, as Melissa pointed out above, over 9,000 people have been dismissed.
And clearly times have changed since you've been in the military. The men and women serving today say they don't care about it. And we should trust your poll of 1 over a poll of several hundred?
Fellow Stonewall Libertarians,
I wanted to share with you that a few nights ago (Tuesday night, June
5) I was interviewed for one hour on the nationally syndicated Rollye
James talk show...during which I was able to strongly voice my
complete rejection of the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy (as well as
DOMA).
The show was heard across the country including the stations of WGY
(Albany), KTBL Albuquerque, Charleston WV WVHU and WIRO,
Charlottesville VA WCHV, Cleveland WHLO, Columbia SC WISW, Grand
Rapids WBCK, Greenville SC WRIX, Hartford WXCT, Huntsville AL WBHP
and WHOS, Spokane KGA, Jackson MS WVBG, and Youngstown OH WKBN. Some
stations were so powerful in reach that they individually reached
many states as well, such as "NewsTalk Radio 810 WGY, whose 50,000
watt clear channel signal covers Upstate New York and is heard in
over 30 states at night."
I was asked much about the difficulties facing a third-party
candidate, debates, etc., and was asked about issues such as Iraq,
immigration, etc.
The host had not asked me about gay rights and gay marriage during
the interview (as they were focused on a few other issues and
obstacles facing a third party candidate such as myself), so I spoke
up and said there was another issue I definitely wanted to share with
listeners, and that was my belief in full equality...I went on to
share how over 9,000 fine men and women have been discharged as a
result of the discriminatory DADT policy...and I also shared that as
long as government issues marriage licenses and gives benefits and
advantages to married heterosexual couples, I believe those same
benefits and marriage rights/licenses must be and should be given
equally to gay couples as well.
It was a good interview... and an excellent opportunity to reach non-
Libertarians across America with our message of liberty and equality.
As always, I welcome hearing from you.
Best wishes,
Christine Smith
http://www.Libertar ianForPresident. com
The way to avoid having sexuality be a big deal is to stop making it a big deal. If there is no difference between being a homosexual or a heterosexual then it does not make any difference if a man mentions going to the movies with his girlfriend or his boyfriend. If a man says he took his girlfriend to dinner last night, is he "defining himself by his sexuality"? Maybe some are! If a man says he took his boyfriend out to dinner the night before, and gets courtmartialed for it, that is a plain waste of resources in a time of war.
No TRUE conservative would support any such nonsense! Government meddling in people's private lives? That is NOT conservative.
The gay issue is not that big a thing right at the moment but Guiliani said one thing that that certainly scares me. He stated that "nation building" is something we need to teach our military! When, oh when, are we going to get out of the notion that any, even one red cent, of my tax dollars should be spent for "nation building?"
I cannot believe you typed that. To whom is it NOT a big thing? It is a big thing to me. It is a big thing to the 9000 members of the military that have been dismissed since the inception of DADT. It is a HUGE thing when the military recruitment numbers are down and Bush is requesting a larger military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pull your head out of your ass, James.
"No TRUE conservative would support any such nonsense! Government meddling in people's private lives? That is NOT conservative."
I can tell you this, Anitra, as a Conservative : having gays in the military is not in conjunction with Conservative values. I don't know where you heard about us, but your information is flawed.
58 is a small number of translators, when something like 11,000 speak Arabic or Middle Eastern languages needed in the military.
I'm curious, are you for or against this Iraq war?
Are you really concerned with military readiness?
Do you really want as many men and women on the battlefield as often as possible?
I want you to understand that as someone who served, I'm only concerned with having the finest killing force the world has ever known. The homosexuality issue is of little importance to me. I only care that our armed services be as ready to kill as many of the enemy as possible…………and I don't care who that enemy is – that is for the commander in chief to decide. That's what soldiers do, especially in battle. President Bush is our commander in chief, and he's following the DODT protocols like no President ever has………and he's doing a great job, by all accounts. He doesn't want to rescind DODT, because that would open up Pandora's box for him in the middle of a war. I'm sure you understand why.
It is not a big issue to me! I can't do anything about it, there is nothing on any ballot to vote on, nothing is being done legislation wise about it! That makes it a non issue! Should those persons have been discharged from the military, I don't think so but I've no say in it! And rather glad I don't.
I don't know what kind of contortions with your anatomy you may exercise and don't care but please put your brain in gear before making smart alec comments! I always strive to keep any discourse civil and recommend that to anyone wishing credibility! I realize you have a personal interest in this subject but most people do not and won't share your zeal. I see lots of injustices which need attention and this one does not rise to the top in priority to me at this time! Sorry.
"Bret, you are telling me that you do not want 9,000 additional warm bodies in the military. 9,000 more people to back each other up. 9,000 more people to help with translation and intelligence. Wow! Conservative sure is a dirty word."
I am telling you just what you don't want to hear.
We have over 1.4 million soldiers in the American military. 9000 of any group won't be missed. Contrary to what you may have heard, we have exactly the number of people we should have in Iraq.
I think you're confusing your 9000 number with the translator issue. So far, 58 gay translators (that speak Arabic or needed Middle Eastern languages) in the Armed Forces have been expelled because they announced they were gay to the whole world.
9000 TOTAL gays since the 1995 DADT decision, have been expelled. Were they ALL essential to the Iraq/Afghanistan mission? Probably not.
I know a lot of gay people. There are many who, if I didn't find out because they or another friend told me they were gay I'd never know. I'm not particularly innocent. A good friend who recently moved out of state has a deep voice, is interested in cars, motorcycles, home repair, and electronics. He's also interested in having sex with men. I used to work for a man who never gave the slightest indication of his sexual orientation. I found out from a co-worker. My supervisor wasn't secretive, he just didn't make a big deal of it at work. He was a varsity college athlete. He had no problems in the locker room. I'm sure that he'd handle living with a group of straight men just fine.
There are lots of gay men like that. People of any sexual orientation who can't control their sexual appetites aren't good candidates for the military. Chances are there would be other areas where they wouldn't be able to handle military discipline.
Bret, I am most certainly not confusing the numbers. I know exactly how many translators have been discharged and I know how many military personnel have been discharged since the inception of DADT. You don't think that discharging 58 translators when 11,000 are needed is a problem?
"Bret, I am most certainly not confusing the numbers. I know exactly how many translators have been discharged and I know how many military personnel have been discharged since the inception of DADT. You don't think that discharging 58 translators when 11,000 are needed is a problem?" - Melissa
Clearly, you misunderstood me.
11,000 U.S. military personnel currently speak Arabic or needed Middle Eastern languages.
58 admitted gays, that speak Arabic or a needed Middle Eastern language, have been discharged since the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts began.
In addition, since the 1995 DADT protocol began, 9000 have been discharged from the military for professing their gayness openly - in defiance of the Military Code of Justice rules pertaining to this matter.
I think that discharging 58 gay translators, out of 150,000 total troops in the region is "statistically insignificant", as the DoD said in its written statement on CNN last week. This is a pet project for Wolf Blitzer, so I hear those statistics frequently.
My question to you, Melissa, is : is this subject important because you are strongly in favor of the war?
Or is it important to you because you want to join the US military?
I'm conservative, but a registered Democrat. I think you're hearing my conservative nature coming through.
58 IS a small number, when you're talking about anything in the U.S. military.
I'm just telling you what I know from my experience in the military. You don't have to listen, or to believe me..................I mean, I only know what I'm talking about.....lol.
I visit the VA hospital here in Chicago once a month. I talk to injured soldiers. I've heard many of them tell me that 58 of any group wouldn't make a difference. 50,000? Maybe. But not 58.
A gay dismissed translator..........or 58 of them, are not the answer to the war. As the DoD stated last week on CNN, the number is "statistically insignificant". I'm sure all the families who've lost sons or daughters heard that. So far there has been no outcry.
Are you truly interested in this because you feel strongly pro-war?
Or are you thinking about signing up for military service?
Being ex-military myself, I have met many families of fallen soldiers. Have you?
One does need to be strongly pro-military to speak authoritatively about the war, the DADT policy, how soldiers really feel, fallen soldiers, their families, etc.
I sense you're wanting to pick a fight based on what you think your rights "ought to be", and you don't really care about soldiers or their true problems, especially during war. Soldiers just happen to be a good straw man for you to argue your gay rights talking points.
David, finally you're saying something I've always said. Why would a gay man or woman want to lie to get into the military? Why not just stay a civilian? If you feel like you're not welcome to 'express yourself', then why join an organization that penalizes you for doing exactly that? It makes no sense at all.
The war isn't going to end right now. The troops won't come home immediately. That just isn't the history of the way the military is used.
I'm hoping that we implement a plan something like the Korean/DMZ plan of the 1950's : we pull back to be the support for the Iraqi armed forces. We give them good intel on where to go to catch the bad guys (from our drones and satellites), then give them the weaponry to defeat the enemy decisively. If we're needed, we'll be in nearby quick response bases and able to get to the bad guys, pronto. 150,000 won't be needed. More like the 30,000 in Korea.
The bad guys won't be incentivized to attack if they know we're still around, especially if we play up some high profile kills. The Mahdi army should be neutralized for a long term peace.
However, I expect that the religious killings will continue forever. That just won't be solved.
I realize that the war is not going to end tomorrow. I was just expressing what I would like to see happen. I am effected by this war. My best friend's son is currently serving in Iraq. My daughter's husband is scheduled to go over in February. My children's friends are serving in Iraq. I cringe every time I see the flag at half-staff and learn that another South Dakota soldier has been killed and then I pray that it is not someone within our extended family.
First of all, David is a big boy and can speak for himself. He's trying to make his points, even though they come up a little short. The actual substance just isn't there, though. His words seem pretty straightforward, and my responses are equally straightforward. No 'twisting' has occurred.
I just think his sincerity is not there. Mine is.
As far as dead soldiers go - I hear you on that topic. I have a son and a nephew in Iraq right now, so I feel this issue deeply. At the same time, I'm looking at the most logical way to end it, and that seems to be the Korean/DMZ plan. I think its the best and shortest way to do it, with the least amount of dead Americans and the most amount of involvement from the Iraqis.
I just saw a movie on DVD about two men loving each other in the Israeli army. It was like an Israeli "Brokeback Mountain" (sort of). It was called, Yossi and Jagger. I thought it was interesting for all sorts of reasons (one, I've never seen an Israeli film before).
"make a statement that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual;
engage in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or
marry, or attempt to marry, someone of the same sex. "
Note the central issue . . . gays can serve so long as they do NOT have sex. How many heterosexual people can serve 20 years without engaging in sex? Four years? Moronic policy. ...and attempting to get married to a same sex partner? Meaning to politically support same sex marriage is denied! Way to restrict the political rights of the very people fighting to retain them! How can that possibly be right? Period.
mike e. asks why is it important to declare sexuality. I ask, why must they refrain from all sexual activity . . . and why is it anyone's business? This is NOT about declaring sexuality . . . it's about hiding it.
Bret "We have over 1.4 million soldiers in the American military. 9000 of any group won't be missed."
Completely idiotic statement. What a lunatic. My 10th Mtn Ranger son is in field; in a squad sized unit . . . 8 people.
And I could care less if 58 people is a lot or not to you people. ONE is too many for blind bigotry! They ought to allow willing women in too! Frankly . . . a little sexual relief wouldn't hurt . . . and NOT to procreate. To have whatever fun you might be able to get in the hell hole of combat. Frankly Spartan Warriors were stronger because they were predominantly gay and people don't tend to cowardice . . . but to enormous courage in front of their lovers.
Disruptive? Bullshit. It's always the right time to do the right thing. This policy is stupid, inane and wrong. And before you ask . . . I have lost a hell of a lot more family members to the stupidity of War . . . and the hubris of this country than any of you. Son, all siblings, father, Uncles . . . MANY served and all but two in combat. Four of five uncles were killed . . . two in the D-Day invasion and following few days. My Uncle whose name I bear stepped on a bouncing Betty (landmine) in the battle of the bulge and what was left of him came home 120% disabled.
Gays? Anybody stupid enough to want to go into this combat in Iraq should be permitted to go. Let's let Darwin work it out, eh?
Funny, israel was invaded by FIVE Nations when it declared independence. Gays didn't seem to hurt their military (nor did women).
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Thanks, Doyle.
My apologies on the name thing.
Domination of the Middle East? Ummmm, no. I think most folks in this country think we'll be lucky to get out of there without our asses being handed to us. Domination is not on the agenda..........LOL.
Seriously, did you read that on the Daily Kos, Media Matters, or some other Leftist site?...........because its hilarious.
"Note the central issue . . . gays can serve so long as they do NOT have sex. How many heterosexual people can serve 20 years without engaging in sex? Four years? Moronic policy. ...and attempting to get married to a same sex partner? Meaning to politically support same sex marriage is denied! Way to restrict the political rights of the very people fighting to retain them! How can that possibly be right? Period."
I think you're starting to understand now.
You realize that the military is discouraging gays from the military, due to the DADT policy, right?
This statement is part of that policy of discouragement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do have 1.4 million men and women in the U.S. military. What I should have said is : even one person who doesn't want to follow military regulations would not be missed. 9000 people over a 12 year period were dismissed from the military for breaking the DADT policy. Every one of them would not adhere to the military rules. THAT is why they won't be missed.
If only they had shut their big fat pie-holes, things might have turned out differently.
As anyone in the military knows, keeping your mouth shut when information is unwanted is the very smartest thing you can do.........especially personal information like this.
I'm Conservative........you know this already. Is that really a revelation?
I'm for the military, not for those that don't want to follow military rules. No backpedalling here. Just the facts. DADT is working, so no need to change it.
This is a really simple issue. There is a decade-old policy in the military that discourages gay folks to declare their sexuality. If they can't follow that rule, then they shouldn't join up. Not that difficult.
Don't you remember how passionate Bill Clinton was when he sold this program to us? Hey, he was your guy. Even he thought it was good.
If 90% of the population were homosexual, and I was part of a 10% minority of heterosexuals, and there was a DADT policy in place in the military, I wouldn't sign up for military service.
Hey, life's just too short to be where you're not wanted. I wouldn't cause a stink, I'd just do something else.........happily.
What I said was that I simply wouldn't go into the military if the rules were against me. I'd just happily move along and do some other job. Loyalty isn't the issue, as I'm sure it isn't the issue with gays.
Why swim upstream? This policy won't be changing anytime soon.
As an ex-military person, you know how important it is for soldiers to follow orders. If gays can't follow this one, why would they follow other ones they don't agree with?
That is why they were dismissed.
And no, 58 linguists in Middle Eastern languages is not a lot over a 4 year period..............not when you consider that 11,000 active soldiers speak needed Middle Eastern languages.
I couldn't agree with you more………..it is painful to hide one's sexuality from the world. So why sign up for a job where you have to do that? Why not stay a civilian and be out in the open about your sexuality. I think this is exactly what gays should do.
This DADT policy is exactly what the military seems to want. Why would anyone think they could get the U.S. military to change? If you've been in the U.S. Armed Forces, you already know how silly that sounds.
Peter, I laugh at that irony every day.
I'm curious why you believe what you believe. That's why I continue to question, on this thread.
Why gays would subject themselves to harassment, ridicule, and job suicide, fascinates me. Is your 'futility button' broken? LOL
The military has been crystal clear on the consequences, and yet you guys keep beating your head against the wall, hoping that your head won't hurt once you stop.
Einstein once said "Doing something over and over again is called habit. Doing something over and over again and expecting a different result is called insanity". This is a perfect example of Einstein's comment, come to life.
Do the 11,000 speakers of these languages (a number which I frankly doubt) speak them fluently, with large vocabularies of current political and military terminology? Would they be able to get the specialized clearances necessary for SIGINT collection and analysis? Do they speak the proper dialects (Moroccan Arabic and Iraqi Arabic are almost different languages)?
Maybe they want to serve their country to such a degree that they would put up with the harassment. I don't know their reasons, merely that they have them. I would have been proud to serve with any of them.
When the military considers someone fluent, that usually means they speak the language well enough to get around in that country, without a lot of help. You being ex-military and a speaker, you'd probably know the standards better than I.
Pete, if they're willing to put up with the hassle, as you put it, why can't they just shut up about it? In the military, that's the easiest thing in the world to do.
My focus is with the military. I view the DADT issue as a side issue, with little importance. I'm just curious why someone would knowingly and willfully stand in the way of an oncoming train?
I don't think its going to happen. I understand the issue quite well, since I ran into it when I served.
These folks serve right now, and I have no problem that they do so. I object when they make it an issue. As long as they deal with it silently, I have no problem with them serving. I think I'm in the majority in the military, when I say that.
I'm sure their contribution is just as good as anyone else's. Once again, I only care about combat readiness, and this Crusade is not important to achieve that goal. The military will go on, with or without them in uniform.
The base of recruits in the military is the reason this policy exists. Many of the recruits (and future potential recruits) are from smaller towns, and many are from the South and Midwest...............places where being gay is tantamount to being a criminal. They are not exposed to gayness. I feel that the military had to find a way to keep their base of recruits solid, and at the same time try to find a way to allow gays a way in. The Army is a Big Tent organization, however, the base is pretty conservative. 'The powers that be' did not want to lose their base - they just tried to expand it a little. Not sure if that's been a wise move or not, given the response from those eagerly desiring more gays in the military.
My point, which may have been a little off focus in the first paragraph, is simply that gays and lesbians benefit by living in this country and should have every right to defend it. In fact, if we were under attack, why should their obligation be any less than to protect it. People argue all the time that gays get special rights. Yet, the same people argue that they should not be in the military. Isn't allowing gays the right to be exempt from the draft in fact a "special right"?
I understand there are special issues with barracks and such. I'm not sure how to solve those.
" Bret, I would like you to attempt to keep your sexuality out of conversations for the next 30 days. Do not talk about your spouse/partner/significant other. Do not discuss dating. Do not discuss anything about your personal life with anyone outside of your extended family (this includes close friends). Let us see if you can do it, and do not feel frustrated by it."
When I was in the military, nobody would have known one way or the other if I was straight or gay. I didn't keep pictures on my desk, and my personal effects gave no clue. When talking about military matters, it was business first. I'm a fairly private individual anyway, so the things you ask, I already do.
I'm still private, even though I'm a civilian these days. But if I were still in the military, I would ask those that were gay to 'keep it in the closet', because I shouldn't have to deal with it.
Once again, that's a belief that is widely held in the military. How do I know? I've asked a lot of military folks this question, that's how. The VAST majority don't want to have to deal with another person's sexuality either...........and that, in a nutshell is the reason that DADT exists today.
"9000 people over a 12 year period were dismissed from the military for breaking the DADT policy. Every one of them would not adhere to the military rules. THAT is why they won't be missed.
If only they had shut their big fat pie-holes, things might have turned out differently."
"But if I were still in the military, I would ask those that were gay to 'keep it in the closet', because I shouldn't have to deal with it. "
"why can't they just shut up about it? In the military, that's the easiest thing in the world to do."
You seem to lack some basic understanding here. This is NOT about putting a flaming pink tutu over your combat fatigues . . . this is about anybody who wants to can end your military career, however secretive you are, simply by catching you leaving the wrong kind of bar . . . or bowling with a buddy 'off-base' . . . or at a movie. This is about people who hack into your e-mails and see the wrong kind of messages . . . it has nothing to do with keeping pie-holes shut.
It's not fair, it's not right . . . and it's HIGH time the policy was changed. Yeah there are narrow minded bigots in this world who don't and who won't like it. Tough. We had the same type of people freaked out when black people were permitted to drink from white fountains and come to white schools . . . or when women were allowed to vote (that one still bothers me - LoL!) . . . most people value equality more than freedom . . . some value freedom more than equality. This policy takes BOTH freedom and equality from fellow citizens . . . and makes discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal for every business except the US Defense Department . . . is it unConstitutional or not?
This issue will change. It simply cannot be avoided. In time . . . history will look back on these closet homophobes as spineless maggots slowing the progress of society largely due to their ignorance and their pride in that ignorance.
"If 90% of the population were homosexual, and I was part of a 10% minority of heterosexuals, and there was a DADT policy in place in the military, I wouldn't sign up for military service."
---Good for you! You get to make that decision for yourself. I'm curious though . . . what if you loved this Country and wanted to defend it? Suppose you wanted in?? Would you try to get the unfair rule changed or sit on your backside and just wish it was all better?
"Why would anyone think they could get the U.S. military to change? If you've been in the U.S. Armed Forces, you already know how silly that sounds."
Absurd. It's already changed under Clinton and yet again under Geo. II.
I thought you said these were the ones who could take orders? What could be easier than issuing an order for these life-long military people to follow . . . I suspect even you must realize they'd do it . . . like it or not. On the one hand you assert Gays should refrain from all sexual activity because "that's the orders" . . . and then you turn around and tell me you cannot change the military, conveniently forgetting recent history, because, I suppose, the non-gays won't follow orders?? Maybe THEY won't be missed and we can find some Gay generals to replace them for not following orders.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I can see that a few of you really are gay. I have no problem with that. Its just that you're not wanted in the military..............do you understand that? I think you do, but you just like to argue about how 'unfair' it all is. Well, what's really unfair are the VAST numbers of straight people in the military who have to deal with an issue like this that makes most quite uncomfortable. DADT works because it minimizes the objections of the tiny minority, while trying to keep the recruit base strong.
I guarantee that the day DADT is rescinded, re-up numbers will plummet. At that point, our incredible volunteer military will be a 4th class organization.
PS - I just read the other day that even with Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts continuing, the Marines and Army are still having no problem finding recruits. Numbers are up even in the middle of a war............
" Excuse me, Bret, but you enjoyed heterosexual privelege while in the military and everywhere else for that matter."
Joe, I wasn't married back then.
And gays were thrown out much more quickly and brutally then. DADT is pretty humane, compared to back then.
I get a sense that you've never been in the military.....lol.
You ask questions and make comments that show your naivete about the military and how it works. It isn't fair, and you have to know that going in. Your recruiter tells you one thing in his nice cushy office in Oklahoma City, but when you get shipped off, you realize he lied to you........lol. And you're angry.
The rules aren't there for your comfort, when you're in the service. The rules are there to make your life difficult. That's why wimps don't last long.
The folks that were dismissed were people that couldn't be quiet. Which is silly because that's the easiest thing in the world to do in the military.
Like I said before, this DADT policy won't be changing anytime soon. And it definitely won't be changing because ACT-UP gets involved......lol.
"Bret, your condescension is astounding and utterly pathetic. I hope you've had fun entertaining yourself while others on this thread were truly trying to have a heartfelt and obviously passionate discussion.
I'm so glad we made you laugh."
You and your like-minded but unknowledgeable (at least about military matters) friends are truly entertaining. You made me laugh, and you continue to do so when you talk about things you have little knowledge of. I sense you feel some condescension, not because it actually exists, but because you realize your own naivete when confronted by someone who knows what's what in the military.
Since I talk to military leaders all the time, and I'm still attached to the military via my son and nephew in Iraq, I have the luxury of superior intel on this and many other issues regarding the Armed Forces. If you really knew how soldiers feel on this topic, I think your hair would turn white……lol. I'm definitely telling you the softened, watered-down version. And that's another important reason why DADT won't be torn down anytime soon.
You completely misunderstand if you think I'm not passionate about the military. However, this issue is really a VERY side issue to the military leadership (no matter what they may say in the media)………..however, when comments like those expressed above are aired, they deserve a good counter-discussion – which I enjoy. You didn't really think you could write whatever you wanted on a public site like this and encounter no resistance, did you?
I have tried very hard to not insult you, but you are an idiot if you think you are the only one who discusses the war with individuals in the military. I think it is time for you to leave this discussion. I have tried to be patient. I have tried to explain another side to you. You are not interested in learning so please leave.
Thank you for the clarification.
First of all, I have been civil the whole time we've been on this thread. All I'm doing is providing the counterpoint to your point. Am I making it too difficult for you to propagandize without any discussion?
Free and civil speech is still respected at Gather, isn't it?
Learning is good. However, you aren't teaching.
Since the underpinning organization that this article was written about is the U.S. military, I feel I have enough knowledge about this organization to write authoritatively. If that comes off as arrogant, then the sensitivity level in here is set a little low. You apparently do not know that much about the military to argue authoritatively. You obviously know the gay position well, and are willing to argue from that standpoint. However, the difference between being a gay man and a straight military man is the difference between the sun and the moon.
We both seem to agree with the point that the military DADT policy pushes forth the idea that gay men and women are not wanted in the military. You think that's unfair. I think its unfair to penalize the vast majority of heterosexuals in the military to accommodate a small minority. Since there really is no compromise on this, and since we have not solved the problem through the thorough vetting of the issue on both sides, I guess DADT will just have to stay in place.
If you think there's a lot of folks in the military who just shrug their shoulders and say "hey, whatever" about this topic, you're dead wrong. Most folks in the military are passionate about keeping it exactly as it is. Even if your argument is about higher ideals like equality, you're in for a very, very long uphill battle. Just my opinion from talking with hundreds of servicemen, that's all. And your opinion comes from where again............?
I don't see any movement towards getting rid of the DADT policy. Do you?
Charlie Rangel, a liberal ex-Korean war veteran who pushes for a very Left Wing agenda isn't even talking about this. John McCain, another veteran, doesn't even have this on his radar screen. Even Barney Frank hasn't been quoted on this topic in months...........and he's gay!
And David, this isn't about me. I'm just presenting the antithetical view to Melissa's article.
I'm for the military, and against changing DADT. But that was part of the antithetical view that Melissa the Pirate Princess was pushing forward. I think you and your fellow gay proponents of change are deficient in your argument.
I was just curious why you thought DADT was in danger of being rescinded. So far, you haven't presented even a WEAK case for that rescinding. Just your feelings. I'm sure you know those won't matter when brought up by the Policy Board at the Joint Chiefs meeting on the third Thursday of every month at the Pentagon.
Why would you think I have a problem stating my opposition to HR 1246? I think its just another lame attempt to rescind DADT. Fortunately, its been dead since March. Still has to be fully vetted by the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Good luck with that, since Boyda, Drake, McHugh, and Jones have already stated fierce opposition to it.
This has been tried every year since '95, and its never even gotten out of committee once.