I support the reasoning of many to protest against "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but these protests must be inseparable from a demand for the repeal of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act".

If one is not connected to the other, it is worse than meaningless.

The repeal of "DADT" has mainly moved forward because of the craven indecency of the members of congress who believe it is a good idea to use people for violence and imperial greed while simultaneously denying the people equal rights in daily life. It is disgusting.

A majority of these pus-heads in congress support the right to murder for empire but do not support the right to be at your loved one's side in times of anguish and grief.

Medea Benjamin is correct. Do NOT join the military. This is a trap.

The continuation and expansion of INJUSTICE and greed is not something to "defend".

The article highlights the difficult choices posed by systemic injustice. The struggle is long and hard. Each page turned restarts a new, epic struggle to build resources and marshall energy to right wrongs and build anew. The old ways are too much with us, "we live under a system of structural and systemic injustice" and the future will require a redoubling of effort to prevent losses to gains previously made. The Haly Barbours of this world are resurgent. The African American Community must become especially diligent in the days ahead.

I was wondering if anyone would say anything like this publicly. I posted a thought similar to this on another site and it was deleted.

I'm glad DADT is done with. It was a scummy approach to the situation, b.s. to the core. Someone had to ask or the people who were discharged wouldn't have been. I'd like to see a study of the people discharged under DADT asking how many of them of their own accord went to their commanding officers and said, "Sir, I must report that I am gay" just so they could be honest. I'm betting that percentage is low. From what I understand most were ratted out. Once ratted out, some higher up had to say, "It has been reported to me that you're gay; is this true?" forcing the soldier to either lie or confirm. That's asking.

When I was in the Army many years ago, during the mid 60s, I saw how integration of gay service people could work. It worked for blacks because it was made clear to us in basic training that rank trumps race. The southern boys who came in saying "I ain't takin' orders from no n-words" soon learned that they would be disciplined harshly if they tried to put that into effect.

The problem would have been social since gay-bash themed horseplay dominated barracks life -- suck my youknowwhat being one of the most common things said, along with the gesture -- tubed hand aimed at someones mouth. It was called "grabass" and the whole scene was so homoerotic that an out gay could by merely raising an eyebrow at some of the goings on and saying "Do tell" call many soldiers' true sexual orientation into question.

Also in nearly every unit there was at least one guy (often several) who was obsessed with "queers," always talking about them. Being from California I heard many times the saying "there ain't nothin' in California but steers and queers," each time said as though they had thought up a great witticism themselves. We learned not to go drinking with that gay obsessed guy who, when really drunk, often wanted to "play buttsies" or something.

Back then you couldn't get out of the Army just by telling someone you were gay. Draftees dominated the ranks and a lot of us WANTED to get out, there being a nasty war going on and all. You had to "prove" you were gay, naming names, etc.

I'd been gay friendly before I went into the service, hanging out in gay bars. I continued this secretly while I was in and had I gotten sufficiently fed up, or been put on orders to go to Nam, I had gay civilian friends who would have gladly lied and verified my gayness if I wanted to play that card to get out.

So if the repeal of DADT is certified by whatever process still has to happen, gay men and lesbians are now able to "serve" openly, serve a military empire that is bankrupting our country, making enemies world wide, and allowing the American empire to throw its weight around at will. Great. Go to it if you must now that you have the right. I support you just as much as I support the rest of "our men and women in uniform."

""It has been reported to me that you're gay; is this true?" forcing the soldier to either lie or confirm. That's asking"

I agree that is "asking". Anyone know if this was common practice and not addressed as a violation of DADT?

Having equal opportunity for blacks, gays, women, or other minorities to participate in the endless war for empire is hardly the major freedom some trumpet it to be.

Expanding the population base for military recruitment facilitates recruitment.
That's why most of the top military brass favor "equal opportunity" recruitment.
The more gays, women, and blacks for combat fodder, the better, as they see it.

As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili wrote:
"Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADT

It is unfortunate that this promised grant of equality,
is limited merely to equally participate in the abuse of others.

"To the Gay Community: Now That You Can Join the Military, Please Don’t!"

Yes. Now that gays can kill for fun too, next step is to stop them from it.

You gotta fight for the right to fight, then fight for the right to refuse to fight. Why not just lay off helping to kill in the first place?

How about those gays pipe down a little, do their thing (without forcing others to think about it), and forgo complaining about being denied doing things they mostly don't want to anyway - like serve in war or church?

(Get real, guys and gays, what's so attractive about war and church anyway? - And if you have a justification, count me out of the discussion: I can't comprehend gays in that, admittedly. The military these days is counterproductive to defending country, home or self.)

After all, gays amount to only some 3-9 percent of the population. Not enough to justify the size of the discussion. The discussion should anyway be about how to faze out the military altoghether, not how to increase its reach.

Equal rights are a given (in the Constitution). But in striving for rights it seems gays have forgotten what in detail is worth fighting for.

Gays have been hoodwinked into fighting for meaningless objectives when "equal rights" includes the right to be equally mistreated by going to USA's wars.

If gays spent half as much time opposing these illegal, brutal wars as they did fighting to gain entry into the very institution perpetuating the brutality, we might have cause to celebrate. Allowing women to serve in combat didn't "humanize" the military, and allowing gays to serve openly won't "equalize" it. The military is the brutal face of American capitalism abroad. It is responsible for more slaughtered civilians than any other contemporary institution. Even as we celebrate, the generals are itching to move this war further into Pakistan. Unfortunately, the face of the DADT repeal movement was Lt. Choi--a die-hard military "patriot." No, I cannot celebrate this so-called equality vote--it will only mean more death and destruction.

This is a genius move from the warmongers. They have added to their constituency, and co-opted another group that may reasonably have been expected to number among the opposition.

In the future, young gays in little towns who (understandably) feel marginalized and alienated will look to a career in the one place where they feel they might belong. In my view, this is not good. I think I've read that currently around 30% of USAns currently rely on the military, in some way or other, for their livelihood. Is it any wonder that it is so difficult to turn our swords into plowshares?

I am afraid that we will learn that being gay does not make one immune to the blandishments of the dominant culture, just as being African-American did not inoculate our commander-in-chief. I'm guessing we will have imperialistic gay soldiers, commanding officers and, yes, generals.

"And who knows? Perhaps this victory will also serve to strengthen the military's respect for human rights abroad." As donna mentions above, this is an absurdity. Did allowing blacks to serve strengthen the military's respect for human rights? Did allowing women to serve strengthen the respect for the rights of the Other? Get real here, Medea.

I fervently hope I will be proved wrong....

i hope some join the military with the sole purpose to undermine the criminality of the military and its corporate / civilian bosses who have been treating the gays and lesbians like shit all along.

accessing and leaking information to wikileaks is one of many ways.

One wonders if Medea, Code Pink (whose long work I do admire) and others supporting G/L "freedom and equality" in the US global murder machine, ever asked those so avid to end DADT direct and pointed questions such as: How do you feel about the US practice of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention? Do you support wars based on gross lies? How about a war that has destroyed the nation of Iraq and killed a million civilians, leaving more millions internal or external exiles? Would you obey orders to kill civilians? By what right do you think the US can invade nations which have never threatened the US in any way? Would you be willing to one of the torturers? Or a drone pilot destroying the lives and homes of impoverished people on remote lands 10,000 miles from where you sit in comfort? Do you believe the endless lies of Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden? In a time of a near domestic police state and a US military rampaging over the globe in murderous abandon, touchy/feely connections with those eager to "equalize" themselves in a near Nazi system as you claim to "feel the pain" of their exclusion seems quite misplaced morally and politically.

Christian viewpoint: I've made this comment before, but it sounds like it needs saying again: If you join the armed services, what are you if not a murderer for hire? How can there be "good men and women" in the armed forces?

Do good men and women really offer to kill for others? I really can't see it. How many people did Hitler kill? One, that we can be reasonably certain of, since it is general knowledge that he committed suicide.

As for millions of other deaths generally attributed to him, as in, "Hitler killed six to ten million Jews," it robs so many others of proper credit and is thus unfair, since Hitler did not kill those millions--other people did it for him. In the same vein, George Bush did not kill anyone, nor did Osama bin Ladin, as far as I know. They have others do the killing for them.

If you are willing to kill another human being, what business have you on this planet? If you want to kill someone, I say kill yourself. I won't even get into the opportunities lost, because we squander over half our taxes on the military (which, incidentally, can't catch a cave man after ten years).

I do not support our troops. I support our conscientious objectors, and other thinking people. I support nurses, doctors, teachers, construction workers, garbage men, laborers, cooks, waiters and waitresses, writers, inventors, organic farmers, architects, scientists, engineers, computer programmers, landscapers, and all those who choose to actually do something with their lives.

To the destroyers I say: Why don't you get a life? Far better to be a prostitute, even, than to be a military person. You are at least hiring out to bring pleasure to others, not misery and destruction. If you can't bring yourself to kill yourself, and you still feel a vague need to kill someone, at least get to know a great many people first. Then pick the one you like the least. It will probably be a Republican.

Then you may have some real personal reason to kill, rather than doing so because politician wants others killed, but can't seem to do it him or herself.