Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Infostream
08:14 PM on 01/28/2010
Not only is Obama currently choosing to continue to fund DADT investigations, but this year his Justice Dept lawyers will be funded to go into CA Supreme Court to ACTIVELY ARGUE IN SUPPORT OF DADT. How anyone is still believing his empty promises I don't know. After 40 years of voting Democrat I never will again, the impotent "supermajority" has proven to me it's all a sham, BOTH PARTIES put on a show to hide they ALL really work for the banks, weapons corps, coal, pharma, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Nelson Montana
Artist, Author, Composer
07:58 PM on 01/28/2010
Two questions.

#1: What does some someone's sexual preference have to do with serving in the military. As long as it doesn't interfere with the job they have to do it shouldn't matter.

#2: If #1 is true, what does it matter what they call it?
02:24 AM on 01/29/2010
#3, Nelson.

Why did it take Obama a full year in office to get started?

The where and when he finally said something about DADT reeks of gratuitious politicking.
photo
RonK Michigan
Half of the people you know are below average
05:45 PM on 01/29/2010
On a ship at sea, you work 13 on (1/2 hour overlap on each end) & 11 off. It's not and probably never will be the 13 on that's the problem, it' will be the 11 off....Idle minds search for things to amuse themselves with. As a gay, I am going to "rat out" someone who is harassing me - Sure - the north atlantic in winter where the water temperature is 40 degrees & you have a 5 to 7 minute lifespan.......
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edgarcaycedoc
07:31 PM on 01/28/2010
When I served in the 70s the military made it clear that moral turpitude was cause for dismissal because it made the servicemember vulnerable to espionage, where foreign interests (usually the USSR) might force them to choose between spying on behalf of the USSR or serving with fidelity to their oath of office. The key to this, now as then, is to recognize that IF we accept gays who have come out, they are no longer subject to such vulnerability. If it is legal, there is no shame. It is time the USA joined the human race.
07:48 PM on 01/28/2010
Moral turpitude and the military.....seriously?

We had Phiippine's wh.or.e houses being certified by the US military branches for R and R since WWll, bars and clubs in EVERY port waited for the fleet to pull in. TAILHOOK rapes and cover ups had gone on for DECADES before they stopped them
09:08 AM on 01/29/2010
They haven't stopped, they just aren't talked about anymore.

“The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory.”

http://www.offourbacks.org/RapeZone.htm
06:53 PM on 01/28/2010
I've also read some disturbing articles about not repealing DADT, instead altering it to segregated platoons, with very limited scope of what duties those platoons can perform. This takes a bad idea and makes it WORSE.
I don't see the big problem, since many of our allies have NO PROBLEM with openly gays/ lesbians in their ranks. The really amusing part of the whole issue is the Women's branches of service, WAV, WAC and BAM would have been reduced to less than HALF if lesbians weren't there from WWll until the 80's.....and EVERYONE KNEW.
photo
ProudConservative
Fiscal conservative, social moderate
08:32 AM on 01/29/2010
The term "BAM' is extremely offensive. It stands for Broad Assed Marine. The correct terminoloy for women marines is Women Marines. Perhaps an apology is in order.
09:46 AM on 01/29/2010
I apologise to any woman Marine I offended, I used the term my brother a Viet Nam Marine helicopter machinist called that branch.
06:43 PM on 01/28/2010
Repeal DADT...just do it ,and we'll hear about it

The thing that angered me, (and many LGBTs I've read at other LGBT sites), is the pretty speech which does NOTHING, and just happens to come when Democrats want our FUNDING for their campaigns in 2010 elections.

I'd wager everything I own, that DADT will NOT be repealed before 2010 election, Nancy Pelosi already told House Democrats no CONTROVERCIAL votes before 2010 election, and I take her at her word.
Controvercial votes are anything gay (repeal of DADT or DOMA and an inclusive ENDA.) No immigration reform is also what Pelosi said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberaldemdave
08:01 PM on 01/28/2010
i, too, have been disillusioned by the rhetoric at quickly thrown together cocktail parties to appease the glbt constituency...

the important difference here is that it was the SOTU address. that's a big game changer. i look for it to happen.

that said, this is the lowest hanging fruit (no pun intended) with regards to GLBT civil equality.

until DADT, DOMA and ENDA are ALL repealed, no gAyTM from me. not for the commander-in-chief or any elected official or party organization that hasn't actually DONE something for GLBT civil equality.

some have the audacity to tell people like me that this is a "betrayal". no, the betrayal is to make the promises when you want the donations and then don't follow through.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:40 PM on 01/28/2010
I too wish to see DADT done away with. The question is, what will that leave us with? If only DADT is repealed, we will be left with the original law barring all gays from service. I'm not certain that Obama understands that the original law needs to be replaced also!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Godweiser
The eyes have it.
06:45 PM on 01/28/2010
Somehow I think a Harvard trained lawyer got that point. The guy only taught Constitutional Law at Chicago...that's not exactly a diploma mill, you know. ;)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:02 PM on 01/28/2010
I'm happy for you that you have that degree of confidence in him!
photo
StevenWells
Objects in the avatar are larger than they appear
06:46 PM on 01/28/2010
I don't believe that was "law;" merely "policy."

I appreciate any corrections if I'm wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:01 PM on 01/28/2010
That was an interesting search. Turns out that "Lt. Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first soldier drummed out of the Continental army for sodomy on 11 March 1778." I don't know if it was always law, but it was made military law in 1950 when Congress created the UCMJ.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-GayMenandLesbiansnThMltry.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Godweiser
The eyes have it.
06:39 PM on 01/28/2010
I honestly think if you object to the lifestyle and morality of your defenders, you need to get out there and serve. And I don't care how prior service old and out of shape you are.

Otherwise, you're ungrateful. Gay men and women have died in the uniform. You either respect the sacrifices of the entire military or you don't. It's not just about picking and choosing who is worthy enough to be memorialized.

And since gays have fought and died for this country, I see it as an insult not to allow them to enjoy the freedoms the rest of us have. It's even more humbling to know that people actually fight for America when they're treated as second-class citizens, as Blacks and other minorities (and are, in many places, let's be honest) were in the past, as gays are now. These people have to fight for their own rights against their own government but they still serve.

Frankly, I consider it a matter of principle versus personal squeamishness and a lack of willpower, and I look down upon anyone that thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to serve and marry as a weaker member of the species and far less worthy of the title of "American.' You're lucky you were born that way, really.
06:35 PM on 01/28/2010
The fierce urgency of.....the near future (maybe)

feel the surge of gay enthusiasm....../snark/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaryanneAZ
Raven enjoys the Halloween candy!
05:49 PM on 01/28/2010
The disabled did not get one word in the address. Not one. Cry your river somewhere else. There is no doubt that DADT will be overturned. It is wrong. It is arcane. It is antithetical to our values as a Nation. However, the whining about the single sentence or the pace of the repeal are getting overbearing and obnoxious. BTW, I'm a big supporter of the LBGT community and belong to several groups including Lambda Legal, HRC and the Defense League.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:21 PM on 01/28/2010
The author was saying the "one big sentence" was all that was necessary, that few words provided HUGE hope. He was hardly whining.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Godweiser
The eyes have it.
06:32 PM on 01/28/2010
I think the disabled deserve to be addressed, but I don't think it's good policy to either mention all or ignore all. In the real world, not everything is all at once and smooth execution.

Of course, thanks to Halliburton and others, we will have some contaminated water issues cropping up in veteran's health for years to come and we need to be braced for a long haul of fighting for veteran's health care because history shows that the US at large, particularly the politicians, don't give a rat's rear.

Think of everything from Shay's Rebellion to the Bonus Expeditionary Force to Agent Orange and the Gulf War Syndrome. There's one exception to that and it's the establishment of the VA for WWII vets, because WWII vets were such a huge chunk of the population that no politician could afford to alienate them, or they'd pay with a loss come election time.

Unfortunately, as the military fights smaller wars and less people serve, the directly impacted number of people dwindles and suddenly Veteran's Care WILL take a back burner to everything else. Americans need to start fighting this one now; we've already seen healthcare for vets, including psychiatric show up inadequate to the needs, and that's just the start.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobSF94117
05:44 PM on 01/28/2010
All these comments about sharing showers seem off point. Sure, in this society, putting a nekkid male marine into a shower with young women would probably be awkward, ahem.

BUT we're talking about putting men with men and women with women. Men with other men who sport the same equipment. Women with other women with whom they've shared close quarters since childhood.

A more appropriate comparison would be a culture where men and women bathe together regularly. Or a society in which no one wears much of anything most of the time. People don't react uncontrollably when they're in a familiar situation.

And if there is a problem and separate facilities are necessary, it seems to me that instead of "Straight" and "Gay", the division should be between "Adults" and "The Insecure".
photo
StevenWells
Objects in the avatar are larger than they appear
05:47 PM on 01/28/2010
Very nice B.S. call.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Godweiser
The eyes have it.
06:34 PM on 01/28/2010
I'm just gonna add one to your awesome reality check:

It's not like the parts of your body a gay guy may well admire is going to burn upon coming into the man's vision anyway.
04:52 PM on 01/28/2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell seems to be working fine. There is no "right to serve". The Constituion (Art. I, Sec. 8) authorizes Congress to raise armies and (Art. II, Sec 2) states that the President is Commander In Chief. There is no role for the Courts (and they have stayed out of it). Congress may discriminate on just about any basis it considers rational and in the best interest of military discipline and preparedness. It discriminates on the basis of sex, age, height, weight, strenght, sexual orientation, physical and/or mental disabilities (the Disabilities Act does not apply), just to mention a few, with advice and input from the military. We have the finest military in the world and their mission is to deter war and failing that to destroy our enemies and win. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobSF94117
05:36 PM on 01/28/2010
"Fairness" has nothing to do with it."

Gosh, that sounds so American-y!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaryanneAZ
Raven enjoys the Halloween candy!
05:50 PM on 01/28/2010
When it is your rights at issue, then you would sing a different tune. Either we are all equal or we are not.
04:38 PM on 01/28/2010
The picture that struck me most last night was how, while the President annouced his plans to repeal the policy, the Joint Chiefs sat there, stone-faced. Either they disagreed with him or they were afraid to show support amongst their comrades. Either way, it seems to me to be bad leadership. "Don't Ask" is out of touch with modern reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaryanneAZ
Raven enjoys the Halloween candy!
05:51 PM on 01/28/2010
Do not fault the Joint Chiefs. Their rules of decorum require strict neutrality. They were exactly right in their demeanor. They are being unfairly judged on this one.
06:46 PM on 01/28/2010
The reason I questioned it was because they were seen clapping on another issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberaldemdave
08:20 PM on 01/28/2010
strict neutrality unless the president is talking about the military threat of iran (then, i suppose, it's ok for them to clap...)... this has been widely reported on last night and today.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:46 PM on 01/28/2010
So your expectation is for the Joint Chiefs to desire to be fired and given some other, less than glamorous command?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Godweiser
The eyes have it.
04:23 PM on 01/28/2010
Berettasskeeter I'm a Fan of Berettasskeeter 67 fans permalink
Look up the Military Times and link yourself to the study.
Semper fi

--

I've been all over the website for the Military Times, searched terms like 'homosexuality poll' 'gay poll' 'gay survey' and finally 'poll' and 'survey' and found nothing of the link you claim is there -- the study you neither quite numbers nor can give a link to.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Josh Seipp
04:40 PM on 01/28/2010
Great commenting today. Fanneded.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bnyb
sky-gazer
05:38 PM on 01/28/2010
Honestly, this fellow puzzled me. Seems to be living in his own narrow-minded world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
04:13 PM on 01/28/2010
Okay, that would've been a nice editorial comment for one year ago. But it's a little late now. Where's Obama going to get the cajones to do this now when he hasn't found them all year long? All he does is talk about it. First he's a "fierce advocate". Right. Now he's "committed". Count me among the doubtful.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaryanneAZ
Raven enjoys the Halloween candy!
05:56 PM on 01/28/2010
Oh ye of little faith! There are many strides being taken to take care of this travesty. There are House Bills and military actions occurring. The President does not personally have the power to repeal law -- Congress does.
04:10 PM on 01/28/2010
He did say it, but talk is cheap.