Who's Still In Favor Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Today?

A few days ago, a new poll from the Washington Post/ABC News found that 77 percent of respondents said that they thought "gays and lesbians who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military." Today, the Post's Ed O'Keefe expands on those findings, and breaks the respondents down into demographic categories. Here's the response, at a glance:

So by large margins, Democrats, Republicans, independents, liberals, conservatives, evangelical Christians, and atheists agree: it's time to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Who's against that? John McCain, a Marine Corps commandant concerned about gay-panic-induced spontaneous amputation, crypto-loons from the most-bailed-out newspaper in America, and people from the year 1993.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

02:23 PM on 12/16/2010

Harry Reid just announced he doesn't think there is time in the Lame Duck session to repeal DADT
 
I G*D DAMN TOLD YOU!
  http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/same.jpg
and
  http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/ObamaLeft.jpg
 
 
Boxer, Franken, Klobuchar.....et tu?
  http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/ettu.jpg

[progressiveguy100]

01:22 PM on 12/16/2010

" fundamenta l civil rights should not be determined by polling results." Appleton you are SO right. Good post.

[randyjet]

01:55 PM on 12/16/2010

It is NOT a civil right to get a job with the US government OR the US military. The US military discriminates against people because of age, height, weight, disability, education, intelligence, political views, etc.. The job of the US military is to fight and win armed conflicts,NOT to provide jobs for all.

[lafon5891]

02:26 PM on 12/16/2010

. . . and gay people could never be effective in armed conflicts as translators or nurses or gunners or pilots because we all know that gay people akin to old, short, overweight, handicapped rubes, right? The military takes into account things that would effect the ability of someone to perform a function. Who I sleep with is inconsequential. Is it really that hard to understand?

[Jason N]

02:27 PM on 12/16/2010

Discrimination must meet a rational basis for the govt to be allowed to discriminate. As there is no rational basis to keep gays and lesbians from the service, the laws against service for homosexuals, are indeed unconstitutional.

[DKLabRat]

10:20 AM on 12/16/2010

Bigots and political dinosaurs? Think that's the answer to the question. the Evangelical result is highly encouraging though. I didn't expect that. Hallelujah - they see the light!

[jeremyfive]

10:17 AM on 12/16/2010

There is no such thing as "gay panic" - do we allow any other murders or criminals to claim such a defense? If we did, we could have "women panic", "race panic", "boss panic", "computer panic", "pet panic", etc. etc.

It is an asinine concept invented by desperate lawyers who need to defend outrageous hate crimes for their violent clients.

[jmpurser]

09:31 AM on 12/16/2010

One very important person is in favor of DADT and DOMA, and second class citizenship for Gays. That would be President Obama.

[Contact1972]

01:27 PM on 12/16/2010

Really? He's against DADT? And DOMA? How so?

[Jason N]

02:44 PM on 12/16/2010

Did Obama, or did he not, order his DOJ to appeal both court decisions on DOMA and DADT? Did his DOJ, or did they not, file an injunction that compared gays and lesbians to pedos and incest? Did Obama, or did he not, demand the Rep. Murphy drop his DADT repeal in favor of the WH version, which allows the military to decide "when implementation is best"? Did Obama, or did he not, order the (reprehensible) study to end on Dec. 1, giving DADT one of the smallest legislative windows in history? Did Obama, or did he not, order ENDA shelved in committee due to advice from advisers that it was a political loser?

[Proud Bay Man]

07:10 PM on 12/17/2010

I agree. He is a liar. He is a fake. So much for change. Or is he just waiting to reach over the ffff'n aisle again?

[R U Sirius]

09:05 AM on 12/16/2010

I'm in favor of anything that will catch America up with the rest of the civilized world. ENOUGH with the holier than thou. ENOUGH with the war-mongering and war-profiteering. ENOUGH with the tax cuts for the already preposterously, obscenely rich. ENOUGH with DADT. Enough, already. Let's TRY to save this country from going down the rest of the path to pot hole-ridden, robber baron-infested backwater.

[Contact1972]

11:24 AM on 12/16/2010

And let's add full equality under the law for GLBT tax paying Americans while were at it!

I would fave you 10 times if I could!

[progressiveguy100]

01:15 PM on 12/16/2010

Agree with both of you.

[hopeisalive]

08:25 AM on 12/16/2010

The most interesting part of the poll was that even the White Evangelicals favored the repeal. Why don't the speak up so that the Party of No can hear them more clearly?

[GeorgeBurnsWasRight]

12:50 PM on 12/16/2010

Because their LEADERS are still mostly against repeal, and that's who is representing them to the politicians.

[LanceLee]

06:41 AM on 12/16/2010

This seems to be the way. Things don't change until there is a huge percentage of people for the change, and have been for a while. Then, 5 years from now, every GOP congressman and anyone who was against repeal will claim that of course they were for repeal all along.

[Justin Werner]

09:49 AM on 12/16/2010

So true! I think your Ouija Board is firing on all cylinders and getting a very clear message from the Undiscovered Country on that one.

[GeorgeBurnsWasRight]

12:54 PM on 12/16/2010

Just like the way Republicans keep trying to claim the mantle of Presidents Truman and Kennedy, and lately, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. This is fairly effective with most younger people who weren't alive back then and have received very little history education as we focus public education almost solely on reading and math standardized exams.

[cdncommentator]

11:25 PM on 12/15/2010

Who?
People who will end up on the wrong side of history.

The same people who supported slavery.

The same people who supported the internment of Asian North Americans.

The same people who one day will object to the universal abolition of the death penalty.

[kaptaintripps]

10:34 PM on 12/15/2010

Who?

Nasty, egotistical, blackhearted Chr!st!@n$!!!

[lookrisen]

10:30 PM on 12/15/2010

Well, I'm not against gays in the military. My sister is gay and did quite well in the military for 8 years under DADT. But, I do have some questions...

What will stop gays from suing to live as cross-dressers or getting military housing, survivor benefits, spousal support, military legal defense, etc. (which will cost billions) next?

How will we keep gay men from having relationships on the front line? Right now...women are technically not allowed to serve on the front line (although they inadvertently end up there occasionally) because we don't want soldiers dieing while trying to save their girlfriends/boyfriends. How will we prevent this with gay men?

How will showers/bathrooms and living facilities be organized? Where will gay men shower? Where will gay women shower? What about bi-sexuals? How will this be worked out? What about the straight man who is assigned to a gay man in a pup tent...will he face harassment due to it?

Will there be abuses of power?

The military is not a social experiment...it is the most important function of the federal government (national defense).... I am not against gays in the military (they have always been there) but, I need some really good answers to these questions when I start thinking of gays serving openly in the military.

Peace.

[rustysc]

11:43 PM on 12/15/2010

What you really need is to re-evaluate your thinking. If you served with gays...then you have your answers.

[progressiveguy100]

01:18 PM on 12/16/2010

I served with gays and none of this is an issue. Lookrisen, for someone with a gay sister you seem somewhat misinformed. Perhaps you should talk to her.

[CAHertzfe]

01:57 AM on 12/16/2010

Wow .... Do you lose sleep over these questions? Nothing will change. DADT does not give any person, male or female, gay or straight to have sex in the showers with each other. I think that is against acceptable military behavior. BTW, if you share a towel with a gay person, you can't catch the gay germ.

[AZreb]

09:25 PM on 12/15/2010

General Amos of the Marine Corps says that troops would be "distracted" if they had to serve with openly homosexuals. Guess he should stop working with the NATO troops from other countries that allow gays in their military, too, since his troops might be "distracted".

Good grief - does he think gays would show up for battle with feather boas, high heels, full makeup, rhinestone earrings?

[Jacobite1789]

10:07 PM on 12/15/2010

It's people like him that make being gay a big deal, if people would just be grownups about it there would be no problems.

[Jdaddy1951]

08:47 PM on 12/15/2010

So what we're showing in this poll is that opposition to the repeal of DADT is "so 1993."

[Peace Walker]

02:03 PM on 12/16/2010

F & F!!!

[Jdaddy1951]

02:27 PM on 12/16/2010

Thank you.

[capercaper]

08:15 PM on 12/15/2010

Well, it just passed in the House.

[Michael Clement]

07:57 PM on 12/15/2010

One argument that never made any sense to me is the whole "unit cohesion" one. Supporters of DADT claim that allowing gay soldiers to serve openly would adversely affect the ability of soldiers who have concerns about homosexuality to do their jobs effectively. These same supporters are quick to point out that our military is bar non the best and most professional in the world and nothing should jeopardize that. So which is it? Are they trained professionals who can work effectively with anyone regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation to carry out their mission or are they fickle slouches who will allow whom their fellow soldier sleeps with determine how well they do their job? Are we not questioning a soldiers honor and integrity when we claim that he may not do his job effectively alongside a gay soldier? Frankly, I think those that claim that openly gay soldiers will adversely affect the mission readiness of others are paying a great disrespect to men and women in uniform. I am sure there are soldiers out there who have problems with others of different races or religions, yet our military still continues to function. If you don't like gays just say it... Just stop hiding your bigotry behind the whole "union cohesion" farce. You are disrecting the honor, professionalism and integrity of those who bravely serve us.

[California Girl]

08:59 PM on 12/15/2010

Disapproving of another's behavior is not 'bigotry' -- that is the most inane word I have ever heard used, when referring to people who disagree with another person's actions. Here's a different point of view: If we are going to rely on the professionalism of the military, we should allow men and women to serve in the same unit. If you disagree with that, then you're a hypocrite, frankly.

[PDinCA]

09:28 PM on 12/15/2010

This is not about behavior. Inappropriate sexual behavior is not going to be any more acceptable after repeal than it is now.

[Michael Clement]

09:40 PM on 12/15/2010

Not wanting to serve with someone who secretly smokes crack is "disapproving of another's behavior;" saying someone isn't worthy to serve their country because of whom they fall in love with is "bigotry".... If the proverbial shoe fits...

[Soulmentor]

03:08 PM on 12/16/2010

************Supporters of DADT claim that allowing gay soldiers to serve openly would adversely affect the ability of soldiers who have concerns about homosexual­ity to do their jobs effectivel­y.*****

They spout that ad nauseum but never say and are never challenged to say how and why. Their comments are left to stand there as if it's irrefutable, unchallengeable fact. Why are they never nailed on that?

[Michael Clement]

03:31 PM on 12/16/2010

Thats the point I was trying to make.. they claim as fact that allowing gay soldiers to serve would be disruptive. How do they know this since it has never been tried? Where is the testimony supporting this? I think it is just homophobia that they are trying to mask as effective policy making. This argument has been used before.. first African Americans would be disruptive, then women would be disruptive... The one part of the hearings that i hated the most was when McCain rebuked Admiral Mullins by saying "with all do respect I think our soldiers are mature enough to decide who they want to serve with." But then isnt he implying that they are not mature enough to serve with someone they have fundamental difference with by insinuating that they would let an open homosexual affect their performance? No one seems to answer the absurdity of their arguments. The arguments over Prop 8 are the same way. Gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage.. how? Whats the basis of this argument? Find me one straight couple that got divorced because the guys down the street got married. If we REALLY cared about things that were a threat to straight marriages why don't we start with alcohol, gambling, internet porn and prostitutes? I am sure the marriages destroyed by them some what out number those destroyed by gay marriage... there, I vented.