"Don't ask, don't tell"

[Gabriel]

So Obama has made it clear that he intends to repeal this policy of the military. Apparently Secretary Gates was giving some spiel about military matters and then discussed his support for the Obama position. I don't know enough about the American military to comments, but I sure hope that the American military culture isn't so homophobic that it couldn't handle the removal of "don't ask, don't tell". Any folks in here with some personal connection to the American military feel like commenting on whether or not such a repeal would actually have a negative impact on the American military's morale or anything else?

Peace.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Any folks in here with some personal connection to the American military feel like commenting on whether or not such a repeal would actually have a negative impact on the American military's morale or anything else?

There would be a short term negative impact on recruiting and retention, but like Truman's integration of the services and later addition of women to wider support and combat roles, the long term gain would be positive. Official acceptance of the policy and changing attitudes for society in general would only acknowledge what has been true for generations...gays have honorably served in the military since its inception.

Administratively, striking the ban would remove several other negative issues from security clearance disqualifications to early discharges by those claiming to be homosexual for the sole purpose of not fulfilling their service obligations.

"Don't ask, don't tell" has probably served a very useful purpose as a transition policy for acceptance of "gays in the military". Politically, the Obama administration needs to deliver on this for his party (promises made).

[Michael Hardner]

I haven't been following this, and still thought supporting "don't ask, don't tell" was the progressive position. It used to be just "don't tell".

I am glad Obama is doing this but the timing isn't good for him politically.

[Gabriel]

Hey folks,

I also think it's the right decision to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The only practical obstacle I can imagine is if there's a strong enough current homophobia in the American military to damage its cohesiveness if gay persons are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation. I'm inclined to believe that Americans on the whole, and by extension the military are tolerant of varying sexual orientations, and won't react negatively to gay folks coming out. Don't most respectable militaries have open policies on this issue? I know gays can serve openly in Canada and in Israel, I think the UK also permits openness to gay folks. Generally speaking, the USA is the global leader on civil rights issues, so this move is totally in line with what America represents.

[bush_cheney2004]

... The only practical obstacle I can imagine is if there's a strong enough current homophobia in the American military to damage its cohesiveness if gay persons are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation. I'm inclined to believe that Americans on the whole, and by extension the military are tolerant of varying sexual orientations, and won't react negatively to gay folks coming out.

Tolerance has given way to reality and the impact on force levels. There was a time when homosexuality was considered to be absolutely incompatible with military service, including being compromised because of the existing "stigma" in society (e.g. security clearances and blackmail). There will be a short term backlash from the usual suspects.

Don't most respectable militaries have open policies on this issue? I know gays can serve openly in Canada and in Israel, I think the UK also permits openness to gay folks. Generally speaking, the USA is the global leader on civil rights issues, so this move is totally in line with what America represents.

Not in this case....see the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Countries_that_disallow_homosexuals_from_serving_in_the_military

Edited February 2, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

This issue is so insignificant right now, compared to all of the pressing issues of the day. To me, this is tantamount to Obama taking on the BCS football playoff system. Doesn't he have better things to spend political capital on?

US Justice Department says Obama administration is weighing action on BCS

[bush_cheney2004]

This issue is so insignificant right now, compared to all of the pressing issues of the day. To me, this is tantamount to Obama taking on the BCS football playoff system. Doesn't he have better things to spend political capital on?

No...he has to toss Rachel Maddow a bone to shut her up!

[ToadBrother]

I haven't been following this, and still thought supporting "don't ask, don't tell" was the progressive position. It used to be just "don't tell".

I am glad Obama is doing this but the timing isn't good for him politically.

One of the large problems that seems to have evolved is blackmail and related forms of using knowledge of someone's sexuality to badger them. I was listening on the radio a few weeks ago as one woman described the fear she felt that because someone sharing quarters with her had looked over her shoulder and saw an email she was typing that at any moment now she'd be outed, and then out.

There's nothing progressive about it at all. I think we can safely leave the 1950s/fashion industry cliches of homosexuals in the dust. A soldier should be judged by their conduct as a soldier. It's not as if homosexuals haven't had distinguished military careers before. One of the greatest generals who ever lived, Alexander the Great, was a homosexual.

[punked]

This issue is so insignificant right now, compared to all of the pressing issues of the day. To me, this is tantamount to Obama taking on the BCS football playoff system. Doesn't he have better things to spend political capital on?

US Justice Department says Obama administration is weighing action on BCS

I actually hate the BCS system. But you know what the president has lots of issues of the day, that him and his staff deal with even the small ones like writing back letters to a little boy in Connecticut.

Obama's letter

Sometimes you have to change the small things to change the big ones, and sometimes something you don't care about is the passion of millions of Americans. Like it or not he is the President of collage football fans too.

Also gays being discriminated against by the US government isn't a small issue, no one in the United States of America being discriminated is a small issue.

Edited February 2, 2010 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

Good post, punked. Well said.

[Michael Hardner]

One of the large problems that seems to have evolved is blackmail and related forms of using knowledge of someone's sexuality to badger them. I was listening on the radio a few weeks ago as one woman described the fear she felt that because someone sharing quarters with her had looked over her shoulder and saw an email she was typing that at any moment now she'd be outed, and then out.

There's nothing progressive about it at all. I think we can safely leave the 1950s/fashion industry cliches of homosexuals in the dust. A soldier should be judged by their conduct as a soldier. It's not as if homosexuals haven't had distinguished military careers before. One of the greatest generals who ever lived, Alexander the Great, was a homosexual.

How is that not progressive ?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Also gays being discriminated against by the US government isn't a small issue, no one in the United States of America being discriminated is a small issue.

There will still be plenty of "discrimination" in the US military for a variety of reasons, from druggies to fat people. US federal courts have long upheld the ban on GLBTs to be constitutional.

[punked]

There will still be plenty of "discrimination" in the US military for a variety of reasons, from druggies to fat people. US federal courts have long upheld the ban on GLBTs to be constitutional.

Must be right then it is in the constitution.

"Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Salves are three fifths of a Person too according to the constitution still today.

[bush_cheney2004]

Salves are three fifths of a Person too according to the constitution still today.

What are "Salves"?

The US military discriminates by definition. I was rejected for a new commission because of age. Should I sue?

Edited February 2, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

What are "Salves"?

The US military discriminates by definition. I was rejected for a new commission because of age. Should I sue?

Slaves.

No one is sueing they are getting rid of the policy because it is wrong to not let those who can do the job of fighting for their country into the military. When a law is wrong change the law is what always say.

[bush_cheney2004]

Slaves.

No one is sueing they are getting rid of the policy because it is wrong to not let those who can do the job of fighting for their country into the military. When a law is wrong change the law is what always say.

Nonsense....the policy reflected societal norms just like segregation and exclusions for women. Laws change....just like the US Constitution.

[punked]

Nonsense....the policy reflected societal norms just like segregation and exclusions for women. Laws change....just like the US Constitution.

I agree I am glade they do, now is the time to change them. I don;t live in the past I am glade in the present it is being changed.

[blueblood]

I agree I am glade they do, now is the time to change them. I don;t live in the past I am glade in the present it is being changed.

So it's ok to update the US constitution, but not the Charter? Seems like a double standard to me.

Note: I don't know your absolute position on updating the charter, that's just in reference to lefties that treat the charter as a sacred cow.

[punked]

So it's ok to update the US constitution, but not the Charter? Seems like a double standard to me.

Note: I don't know your absolute position on updating the charter, that's just in reference to lefties that treat the charter as a sacred cow.

I never said it wasn't ok the Update the Charter I am fine with it in fact I think we need to make free speech freer in the charter and there are other things I think should be updated, (added taken away) however I think have a bill of rights like the charter is a good thing I would never want to get rid of it. I also think in order to update the charter is should go through a constitutional change so encompass all that goes with it(ie a vote from all provinces and all provinces must approve it).

[Smallc]

See, that's why I couldn't be a right or left wing populist. All of you always think that you have the answers....if only we made this change, things would be better. yeah, right.

[Sir Bandelot]

It does not matter much to me, either way. I think it's like BC says, gays have been in the military all along, and in other roles in society like politics, policing, teaching, and medicine. So to pretend that they need to be restricted, is a "phallacy"...

Question is though, does this mean that we'll now see bare chests and loincloths in the military parades?

[blueblood]

See, that's why I couldn't be a right or left wing populist. All of you always think that you have the answers....if only we made this change, things would be better. yeah, right.

If we didn't have ideas about improving things, why are we all on here expressing our ideas in the first place?

Everybody has answers, its whether or not people buy into them.

If everybody bought into your ideology that if we didn't change and didn't have ideas to make things better, society as a whole would be poorer and missing out.

[Sir Bandelot]

If we didn't have ideas about improving things, why are we all on here expressing our ideas in the first place?

To beat others down, therebye making ourselves look superior.

[punked]

If we didn't have ideas about improving things, why are we all on here expressing our ideas in the first place?

Everybody has answers, its whether or not people buy into them.

If everybody bought into your ideology that if we didn't change and didn't have ideas to make things better, society as a whole would be poorer and missing out.

Spoken like a true progressive.

[blueblood]

Spoken like a true progressive.

????