Posted on 12/18/2010 9:33:26 AM PST by RatherBiased.com
The Senate has just voted to end debate on a bill that would lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military, essentially clearing the measure for passage and signature by the president.
Lawmakers voted 63 to 33 to end debate on the current policy, put in place by former president Bill Clinton, informally known as "don't ask don't tell."
The Senate could vote on final passage of the measure as early as today but it will most likely happen on Sunday or Monday.
"We are on the verge of ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' for good," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after the vote "This is one of those moments in our history when we stepped up and squared our policies with the values this nation was founded upon."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Of course not..that is never been an issue except maybe to people who like you that are clueless. Gays already serve, honorably. DADT means they do not sit around and discuss buggery and how they buggered their boyfriend last night! Much like I do not discuss what my position from the Kama sutra my wife and I prefer.
We discharge senior enlisted and force Officers to resign for having sex with Juniors. That is forbidding under the UCMJ, as is sex in the barracks (generally by local orders) and sodomy and theft and polygamy and...need I say more. These laws are there for good order and discipline in the military. Military members live under laws far more restrictive than civilians, we all give up some rights in order to serve. Gays included. DADT allowed those gays willing to serve under the UCMJ the ability to serve.
Service in the military is NOT a right. Fat people cannot serve, people treated with mood altering drugs for any disorder may not be allowed to serve. Handicapped people cannot join nor can felons or know gang members.
NOBODY is kicked out for being gay, they are kicked out for perform gay acts or admitting to them in violation of the UCMJ. If gay acts are performed in the privacy of their own home or a motel it is rarely reported and is generally of no concern. On base or post that is a different subject. You really must stop lecturing someone who has served has gone to war and has seen over 30 years of social experiments in the military not all good. DADT limited the number of homosexuals to only those willing to remain circumspect and follow the rules.
zot
My guess? Until the repeal is signed, Ohioman is worried someone will ask and tell.
For the record, I DON'T think homosexuals should serve in the military, but anybody who gets as hysterical about the issue as Ohioman must be a seriously unhappy homosexual himself.
It means equal rights for Domestic Partners to have military housing, living next to families.
It means having their domestic Partners participate inmilitary social functions as equals.
It means a new industry opening up for Lawyers.
NAIL ON HEAD
There is no positive to this but a lot of trouble will happen of which bozo the clown and his queer media supporters will try to hide and not tell the public.
BTW Just had a call off a friend power in Kabul and he has said he and 5 others are not looking t leave the Marines as soon as their time is up.
WELL F-IN DONE BOZO AND THE PRO HOMOSEXUAL CROWD, now 5 good men have decided to leave, my two sons will now not be joining so that is 7
Dr. Carle Zimmerman in 1947 wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He studies the decline of several civilizations and empires. He discovered eight patterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline of a civilization:
1. The breakdown of marriage and rise of divorce.
2. The loss of the traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony.
3. The rise of Feminism.
4. Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general.
5. Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion.
6. Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept their family responsibilities.
7. A growing desire for and acceptance of adultery.
8. Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions (homosexuality) and sex-related crimes.
Pedophiles will love Afghanistan, and what about all the other garbage. You know, this is just a consequence of allowing and legalizing all sexual immorality.
“The issue for me is that the current policy does not exclude gays from military service and why should someone who is gay be kicked out of the military just for being gay if they have served with honor?”
As long as they shut up about their preference, I’m good with that. This is a radical political group seeking to leverage their honorable service into support for their agenda.
That’s all DADT was about. Serve and stay discreet about your problem. They don’t get kicked out for being homosexual. They get kicked out for being public about it—getting caught in barracks doing what they do, showing up in uniform at a gay pride parade, stuff like that.
come on do not put yourself into the group which the left does and do not come down to their level.
The poster is proud of the military as I am, some might not have served due to their health etc, Hell I was lucky because I never told them about my asthma but I went on and did years serving.
The left always says you have to be a homosexual if you oppose them and that is not true and I think you know that
Because heterosexuals shouldn't have to shower, undress or live in the same quarters with someone that may have an unwanted sexual attraction to them.
We don't force women to do all that with men in the military. Why should be forcing heterosexuals to do that with homosexuals?
Thank you Jim, there are too many who think because they know a homosexual that their agenda is no problem, it’;s high time they woke up.
So far, you’ve used the ‘if you don’t like gays you’re a closeted gay’ argument and the ‘chickenhawk’ argument all in one thread.
Seems like DU should be a forum more to your liking with those kinds of tactics.
Laz, I understand what you’re saying...but I would say that their personnel are not as good as ours because of the social experimentation/mores/values that goes on in their armed forces.
The missions of other NATO nations, whether we like it or not, is different than OUR mission. We are the bad ass, the big dog, the one who does the WORK. They are, for most purposes, doing the small stuff. Their load is not as heavy.
Do we want our military personnel more concerned with killing terrorists or with not offending their fellow soldiers? I think this will turn us into a “small nation” military—if not immediately, then eventually.
Think of the cost: will our military now pay for AIDS treatment for openly gay soldiers? For housing for domestic partners and their health care? For “adoption services” for gays? This is a big hot mess that takes away from the military’s mission.
IMHO.
“So now that this has passed, I think they should make separate platoons of only openly homosexuals.”
That actually sounds like a very good idea. It would ensure unit cohesion, and give those soldiers “something to prove”.
In World War 2 the 442nd regimental combat team was composed mainly of Americans of Japanese descent, and became reportedly the most highly decorated unit in US military history, with 21 medal of honor winners.
How many Republican senators were willing to put their reputations on the line to pull a Bernie Sanders and run out the clock on this monsrosity?
Not one Republican senator had the courage to do the right thing. Not one Republican senator would do what most Freepers would do in a heartbeat.
Once again, we have seen the whites of their eyes, and they are not conservatives. None of those senators are principled conservatives. They are fair weather friends.
We must remember this when they resume mouthing platitudes.
They will tell us that they traded their vote for a win on some other issue, like the DREAM Act or the tax act or something else. Don't believe it. This is just crass pandering on their part.
Think about it: which special interest group made out in the lame duck session? The Gays. What does that tell us about the priorities of Republican senators?
Your guess is wrong. Read ohioman's posts again.
For the record, I DON'T think homosexuals should serve in the military, but anybody who gets as hysterical about the issue as Ohioman must be a seriously unhappy homosexual himself.
Why did you just call a FReeper a homosexual?
Rest assured the survey was conducted in such a way as to guarantee the proper response, the desired response those who initiated the survey require. Then the results are pushed forward by the liberal mainstream media as bible. This tactic is used all the time, an example not related to this issue, ask anyone who voted for the stadium issue back in 1997 that live in the Cincinnati area. All kinds of bogus surveys promoting the issue came out in the run up to the vote ... within two years it was abundantly clear to voters they had made a huge mistake.
having done many NATO exercise and worked with NATO I can honestly say that those NATO nations is not like ours and the only one which could be is the Brits and while they might have the law they do not allow openly serving homosexuals and a blind eye is done if something happens .
Something of which will not happen in ours.
As has Rush Limbaugh, who never sees a peep about it while giving Elton John a million dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.