Marking the 14th anniversary of legislation that allowed gay people to serve in the U.S. military, but only if they kept their orientation secret, 28 retired generals and admirals planned to release a letter Friday urging Congress to repeal the law.
“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”
The former officers offer data showing that 65,000 gays and lesbians now serve in the U.S. armed forces, and that there are more than one million gay veterans. “They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states…
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili refocused attention on the issue this year when he wrote that conversations with military personnel had prompted him to change his position…
“I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” 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.”
It’s a strain to comment politely about a policy as rooted in ignorance by the bigots who defend discrimination. Science, reason, rational analysis and the history of democracy in this nation lead one naturally to oppose such foolishness.
On the other hand – why be polite to fools? I ain’t running for office.
Ed,
On the other hand – why be polite to fools? I ain’t running for office.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Still, it seems like it would be a great “out.” It’s no use being a conscientious objector, but if you can say you’re gay, you’re free.
The problem isn’t the gay soldiers, it’s the homophobic heterosexuals that wrongly think the ‘others’ will lust after them.
Of course that is so not the case.
I don’t see a simple solution, but I do think openness would be better.
It would help if the generals knew the facts. Congress never passed don’t ask, don’t tell, the President did by executive order. What Congress passed was a ban on homosexuals in the military.
Well said, Edward!
Mike, I’m sure the generals know the facts. They didn’t say who authored the legislation, but they believe it will take congress to revoke it. Is that true? I’m Canadian eh? Not too versed on US politics.
Mark Derail
“The problem isn’t the gay soldiers, it’s the homophobic heterosexuals that wrongly think the ‘others’ will lust after them.”
That’s right, it’s always someone else that’s the problem. The freakish behavior the gay lifestyle offers has nothing to do with it.
The problem is that the military is being used for social experimentation and no matter how you scream homophobic the “real” problem is staring you in the mirror.
[Book ‘im] Dano,
I think you’ve got it right. Homophobic is a prejudicial label applied to anybody who thinks there may be a problem with the lifestyle. Given that people patently aren’t *afraid* of them, it is an absurd term but makes a really nice rallying cry, sort of the same as “Liberal democrat” or, for that matter, “Bushie.”
One issue not addressed is the treatment of women in the military – apparently they are pressured for sex all the time. Do we really want to introduce another sexual dynamic into things?
Disclaimer: I don’t actually care whether the military allows homosexuals or not.
When Brigadier General Keith Kerr was asked how (as a member of the steering committee of gays and lesbians for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton) he was allowed to pose questions at the Republican debate – he said. I wasn’t asked (by CNN), so I didn’t tell them.
Also – the military drummed out many of their best Arabic translators over this issue.
Wouldn’t women be more disruptive? that’s right – we already do that.
>>The freakish behavior the gay lifestyle offers
Wow. I dunno what kind of sex life you have son, but I’m here to tell you that heterosexuality offers every bit the same opportunity for freakish behavior. You need to get out more. There are other things in life besides the missionary position with your eyes closed in the dark.
The issue here is not the moral acceptability of “the lifestyle”; it’s whether or not GLBT soldiers can serve in the military without fucking each other to death on the battlefield, or sneaking a hand down their comrade-in-arms’ pants in the foxhole. Heterosexuals seem to manage that in the armed services, and GLBT individuals seem to manage it quite well in all other aspects of their lives. So there’s no reason to think they can’t do the same in the military.
The real villians here are the holy-rolling, Bible-thumping, soi-disant “heterosexual” hypocrites who try unsuccessfully to control their powerful urges to fuck little boys, share drugs with same-sex prostitutes, and jerk off in hotel rooms in front of strangers. Real gay people are not like that.
>>Congress never passed don’t ask, don’t
>>tell, the President did by executive order.
I don’t recall the generals mentioning anything about who PASSED the law (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654 was drafted by Colin Powell, and put into law by Bill Clinton); they just asked Congress to repeal it. I’m not sure what’s involved in repealing an executive order, but not even the most delusional human rights advocate would think that Dumbya would do any such thing.
While Clinton’s law was not ideal, at least it was a step in the right direction. He could NEVER have gotten away with passing an “it’s none of your fucking business” law; not with all the little-boy-fucking, meth-smoking, whore-loving neocon Bible thumpers roaring away from the pulpits of their megachurches.
I suppose it’s time someone carried this argument to an inevitably ludicrous level. I know it may be a suicide mission, but in the interest of saving time, I volunteer (in fine military tradition).
Here goes…
The next thing you know, they’ll want to be able to have sex with animals and children while serving in the military. This “freakish behavior the gay lifestyle offers” (thanks #6) is the sort of slippery slope that will ultimately cause America’s defeat, leaving us humiliated and crushed on the battlefield.
(did I capture the full flavor of utter lunacy?)
#9
It’s never a good argument to draw a moral equivalence between two perverted acts, and it certainly doesn’t make the gay lifestyle any less freakish.
If someone wants to live their life in the gutter, fine, but why destroy the only thing that stands between freedom and destruction all for the sake of being stylish?
If I were a Republican politician I would let gays & lesbians to join the military, what better way of getting rid of them by sending them to die in a senseless war along with the disposable heterosexual children of low class families?
#11
“It’s never a good argument to draw a moral equivalence between two perverted acts, and it certainly doesn’t make the gay lifestyle any less freakish.”
And what is freakish to you eh? That I get a boner for something that doesn’t have titties and a c*nt?
I don’t smoke, I don’t drink, I don’t go partying from 8pm to 10am; BUT my straight friends do that.
If I were you I’d get more info on homosexuality other than the cliché BS like Queer as Folk and the L word.
Wow, it took nine posts to draw out MR mus “TARD” from his glory hole to attack someone who has a problem with gays. Take the richard out of your mouth and pay attention tard…
#14 – If we want your opinion we’ll tell it to you. Until then, shut up: You’re not even funny.
We all know Mustard’s gay. So what? It seems like he’s raped you some point in the past, is that the cause of your issues?
>>but why destroy the only thing that
>>stands between freedom and
>>destruction
And what is that “thing”, O Limp One? Fucking Iraqi whores instead of your wife, doing it doggy-style with a farm animal, or marrying your cousin?
Of course I am going to look with disdain on a shit-fer-brains who “has problems with gays”. Just like I look with disdain on xenophobic hatemongers (such as yourself?) who bitch an moan about the niggers, the spics, the kikes, the beaners, the sand niggers and towelheads, and everyone else who looks or acts a little different than they do.
btw, you seem to know an awful lot about glory holes there, Stud. I guess you “value diversity” after all. Kudos.
Yeah #14, that’s one of the most coherent posts Mustard has ever made. You picked the wrong one to rant about.
I am sure Hillary Clinton will get this policy instituted by her husband turned around in the next election. Why doesn’t somebody ask her?
boring.
Does anyone else get really tired of the stupid and inconsequential shit that pumped through the mass media – it reminds me of some guy that stuck in a never ending cycle of vomiting.
theres new out there that doesnt suck ass, and it does matter. I dare you to post it here on DU.
During my four years in the Marine Corps, there were guys in our company who were pretty openly gay. There were guys who were suspected of being gay. And I’m sure there were plenty who were gay, but kept it to themselves.
No one cared.
All the men you serve with are your brothers. It doesn’t matter what their race is, or religion, or sexual preference. That is a deep rooted belief system that’s drilled into your head from day one.
When it’s time to fight, no one cares if the man to your right or left is gay. We all know that those men are just as well trained as you, and will have your back.
If there’s any question whether the troops on the ground can handle serving with homosexuals, I’m telling you they can. No problem.
Sean, I hope you have your Kevlar vest on. There’s a whole passel of folks around here who disagree with you.
They’re idiots, but they’re here.
I was in the Army many a long year ago. Remember Viet Nam? We had several guys we knew or thought were gay. Nobody cared. We had a couple of guys from Texas we were sure had stump-trained cows back home. But they all lived their own lives and we all got along pretty well. The one we had a problem with was the guy from Maine whose girl sent him monthly evidence she was not pregnant. I kid you not. But, he quickly learned not to share with the rest of us. Personally, I always thought the don’t ask/tell policy was right. You don’t need to know if I’m hetero, I don’t need to know if you’re homo. I just need to know if the guys in the jungle are shooting at me, you’ll help me shoot back. Same way I feel about “gay pride” in the St Patty’s Day Parade. What does being gay have to do with drinking enormous amounts of green beer, anyway? You’re gay? Great. I’m pretty sure you don’t want/lust after me. I’m not threatened by your homosexuality. And you and I can go out after work and have a beer.
What a load of monkey dung, most of this is. The military doesn’t care about sexual moralities. After all, they’re in the killing business. It does care about recruitment numbers. And it only objected to gays, because they thought they’d scare away the straights from joining. I know I stay out of the Navy, partly because of it’s gay reputation (at the time) and because I couldn’t swim. But the armed services are so desperate for recruits now that gays are the least of their concern. They’ve been allowing gang members, neo-Nazis to enlist! Enlisting more gays would actually be an improvement. They rarely torture each other with barbaric rituals, like branding.
#21 – Hey, relax. You didn’t take it in the ass in this thread (for a change). Good job!
How about letting the gays in and kicking the women out?
9 MM said: “The real villians here are the holy-rolling, Bible-thumping, soi-disant “heterosexual” hypocrites who try unsuccessfully to control their powerful urges to fuck little boys…”
1. Those are by definition homosexuals.
2. I would not want to fight in a platoon that had the probability of innate sexual dynamics interfering with, or playing favorites on, the battlefield. Male or female.
RBG
>>I would not want to fight in a platoon that had
>>the probability of innate sexual dynamics
>>interfering with, or playing favorites on, the
>>battlefield.
Not everyone in the armed forces fights in a platoon. Do you remember Hot Lips Houlihan? It’s not just the battlefield that gays are excluded from, it’s the whole serve-your-country enchilada. What’s the big problem with having a rump wrangler serving as a medic, a comm guy, or typing up requests for the mess hall at Fort Lewis, WA?
And with the quality of some of the recruits they’re getting for the armed forces these days (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/3a23ob ), you’d think they would be chomping at the bit to get gays in the military. They’re certainly more fit to serve (and better looking) than douche bags like Lynndie England.
If they allowed fags and queers in the Army, then I could join.
Around 3:00 AM the first night I could ask the line-up, “Hey, are you guys all in the same platoon?” Of course, that would be in the shower.
I want to be owned by the burliest guy in the company. I could help him with his weapon. I could give him a hand with it whenever he need some relief.
Oooo, doesn’t that sound yummy?
>>Oooo, doesn’t that sound yummy?
Looks like you’re in hog heaven, Jimbo.
You can do all of those things and more, anyplace gays are allowed to live like other human beings. Which, other than squeal-like-pig redneck enclaves where all the guys fuck each other up the ass but deny it, is just about everywhere.
Congrats.
I suspect Sean is exaggerating a bit about having openly gay Marines in his unit. When I served in the Corps, someone who was openly gay wouldn’t have lasted until the weekend. I’m sure there were a few secret gays, but since we all showered together it’s the only way they could have survived without a beating.
In my opinion, there is no place for gays in the military if they can’t keep it to themselves. It is much more important for the military to be combat ready than politically correct. It is not homophobic to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle unless it is heterophobic to reject the heterosexual lifestyle. There are places homosexuals (and sometimes women) do not belong for the good of the nation.