“American voters may feel better about the idea of openly gay soldiers and sailors,”
Or not. Regardless, OUR MILITARY HATES THE IDEA! It’s a terrible idea. How exactly is this supposed to work? It makes exactly as much sense as letting men and women share the same sleeping and sanitary facilities, or actually perhaps even less. How many restrooms do we need now, “Men/Straight”, “Men/Gay”, “Women/Straight”, “Women/Gay”, “Men/Not Sure Yet/Transgender”, “Women/Not Sure Yet/Transgender”, and “Neutered/Hermaphrodite/Other”?
As a famous ex-President once said: “Doesn’t seem prudent.”
Hmmpfffh! As far as I can see, Obama's political opposition will be split on this. Social conservatives will (rightly) oppose this, and the GOP will be too afraid to do so and will support the president. I imagine John McCain will carry a fair bit of water for the president here.
What Obama wants, Obama gets.
If Rupaul is any indication of what gays in the military can do (google the massive beat down he gave some jerks in the bathroom for mocking him), maybe some gays might not be so bad.
I’m half kidding. About wanting gays in the military-kidding. About the ability for Rupaul to kick some ass, not kidding.
There is NO ban on gays entering the military. There IS a ban on publicizing the fact.
It’s been around since the Clinton years. Why can’t the media get it right in all that time?
Homosexuals are not "just like everybody else" and male homosexuals in particular have a unique obsession for multiple "partners" and bizarre behavior. The linkages among male homsexuals transcend unit, rank, service loyalties and undercut any order or discipline. I had an investigation once where we were trying to find out why a sailor was hospitalized and all of his records - in several separate locations - were removed to obstruct the investigation by his "partners" all over the Norfolk and Little Creek area.
If our leadership has any remaining guts, they need to oppose this move with all the strength they have.
The object of having our armed forces is to be able to effectively battle our enemies, not provide a dating pool for deviants.
Yep, go right on ahead and choose your battles reckelessly, Barry! First gun control and now gays in the military. I can’t wait until the 2010 elections to see the look on Rat faces after they get clobbered, just like in 1994...
Hey, we’ve got a “Don’t ask about my birth certificate and even when you do, I won’t tell” president.
The Obamaloon has demonstrated a remarkable ineptness in cabinet selection.
So, what’s the problem here?
As a retired military guy, I have no real problem with serving with gays (they were already there when I served).
However, the Obamaloon policy, coupled with normal liberal inability to ever make a decision, will lead to problems. This is the way of life when we are led by people who cannot lead.
Semper Fi,
Kellly
clinton had the mushy middle.
obama is going full on left and needs the homosexuals to keep giving him money.
Good grief! I've seen too many instances where the writer used "flaunt" when s/he meant "flout" ; this is the first time I've seen "flout" used when only "flaunt" make sense.Maybe both words should be banned from the language, as there does not seem to be enough people with the intelligence to comprehend the MEANING of both words, and hence when to use one or the other. :-(
Really? I bet not more than 40% of American voters want such a thing.
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was a Clinton creation. I haven’t seen a news article make that valid point in a decade.
... American voters may feel better about the idea of openly gay soldiers and sailors,...
And 'American voters may feel better' if they all got a free Pony too. But the 'American voters' aren't getting a Pony - only the bill for one - and 'American voters' don't have to go into battle with an openly gay 'Ben Dover'.
What baffles me in this whole conversation on 'Open Gays' in the military, is that one teeny fact is never brought up -- the Battle Field is now a HAZMAT Zone! Blood, guts, body fluids and parts are all over the damn place.
So who is going to risk their own life by being contaminated, infected and getting a slow death sentence imposed on themselves in trying to pull a wounded 'Ben Dover' out of the fire fight and behind cover? And what Medic is going to treat the wounded and possibly HIV infected 'Ben'?
I say no one. There'll be reasons given why they couldn't help him but in the end (no pun intended) Ben Dover will die where he lays. So changing the Open Gay policy will in effect be giving them a Death Sentence. When they eventually go into battle and engage in a firefight they will be on their own. And you couldn't restrict them from Combat Arms, like Women are, THAT would be discriminatory!
So Barry better tread lightly. This isn't some PC social engineering experiment we need now, or ever.
(and I don't give a crap what other countries do, like Israel)
One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction.
I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.
Sincerly, Mitt Romney
Vets & servicemen: Is the above (nobody likes it) true?