Why any gay man or woman would want to be in the military, I don't know. But they should be allowed to, openly. I spent a good deal of time and trouble getting out of the military, back when there was a draft and Vietnam was hot. I finally had to admit that I was a terrible cock sucker who could not control myself with all those men around me. To make it stick, I also admitted that I had nightmares and suicidal tendencies. The Army swallowed it like I swallow---well, you know what.

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one job for the military: to protect us from those who would exploit us, and from their political lackeys. Perhaps if they were doing their job instead of killing Arabs, they would not have time to be bored.

The idea that soldiers are going to take a break in the middle of a firefight to cornhole each other has always struck me as more than a bit ridiculous. So is the fear that these guys won't be able to crawl on their bellies with stiffies.

As for Lesbians, I guess that the males in the officer corps want to maintain their fantasies that their sexual abuse of female recruits is not actually rape because "the girls really want it."

It never ceases to amaze me how some otherwise intelligent and competent people can cling so fervently to some of the most brainless nonsense that the worst among us can imagine.

q

Quote: "Legislation will be sent to Congress repealing the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy".
The chutzpah-dripping nonsense of this statement is stinking to high heavens. DADT will not necessarily be repealed by this piece of shit-legislation as long as, quote:
"the repeal will not be implemented until after the Pentagon completes a review of its impact on the armed forces".
There are only three viable interpretations.
1. This law repeals DADT and the Pentagonal review is a gigantic hoax, waste of time, and waste of money. In other words a Kabuki theater.
2. The Pentagon will be unable to complete a review.
3. The Pentagon report is so negative/alarming that implementation will be delayed indefinitely because Mr. Obama does not want to be seen as the President who destroyed "unit cohesion". What is this coward going to do if the report says: "Don't do it Beethoven!"

One of the mantras of the antis is: "serving in the armed forces is not a right, it is a privilege". Wait a minute. Do I remember correctly that it was not too long ago that serving in the armed forces was neither a right nor a privilege but a duty with nasty consequences if you did not show up when your name was called? Obviously "what serving in the armed forces is" is in the eye, or else feverish imagination of the beholder.

Looks good to the voters, but passes the buck with no guarantee of change. Midterm elections must be coming up.

Speaking as a Soldier in the US Army

Most people in the army really do not care at all. Those that are the most vocal, I always tend to think they are the ones that will come out of the closet not first but a year or so later.

For demographics; I am whit, middle aged, conservative and christian. The truth is people that want to serve in the military should be allowed to, and to tell them they can not 'date' or marry is wrong regardless of their orientation, religion or anything else that effects them.

don't ask, don't tell?

don't join...

I hate revisionist history.

Author says "In the past, gays in the military has been a deeply divisive issue, almost derailing President Clinton's first few years in office."

Clinton, like Obama, ran on allowing gays to serve openly and won. He backtracked on his first weekend in the White House as best I can remember. He was hailed in the M$M as a genius for this triangulation. Hypocrites both.

It's entirely unsurprising that Team Obama's feckless alternative to grasping the nettle amounts to "hand jobs all around".

Hey you progressives out there who are wont to fill the pages of CD with demands to call my Senator or House Member to vote NO on a bill that tramples the constitution, where are you cowards hiding? This is an amendment which gives the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chief of Staff the illegal power to determine whether a law is really a law or not. It does not matter what the content of this law is. It does not matter how these three scoundrels will eventually vote. This amendment is a legal monstrosity. Call your Senator and House Member to vote NO.

Of course I have been asked by my friends: "what do you suggest should be done"? Simple. Learn from the Tea Party. Wherever possible run/support candidates in 2012 (alas 2010 may already be too late) for Senate and House, regardless of party affiliation, who, in addition to having a progressive general agenda, promise to vote for ending DADT immediately without the currently proposed monstrous construction. In many districts they ought to be able to win because from 70 to 80% of the people are for repealing DADT. Make it clear that they will be opposed in the next election if they betray their promise.
Do not even ask President Obama for help. He is a hopeless coward. Ignore him. Totally.

According to a report Senator Nelson has caved in and will now vote for the amendment. How saddening.
If you want to understand why this amendment is an illegal monstrosity consider the following analog which is not totally unreal. The banking bill is now stalled in the Senate. The White House crafts a compromise with the stalling Senators according to which the law will pass both houses as is but will not become a real law until:
1. A presidential committee has finished its investigation and has reported that the bill will not destroy the cohesiveness of the U. S. banking system, and
2. The President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Banking system, and the CEO of Goldman Sachs (representing the bankers) have all given the green light.
You can apply this monstrosity to any stalled bill such as the upcoming energy bill which will be stalled in the Senate. The CEO of BP representing the oil industry will have to vote yes!
Have you got it now?