Steve, get it right. Elaine Donnelly DOESN'T support DADT. She supports a total ban on queers AND women in the military. Hence her support for the question.

Despite the fact that this shill has no military or public policy experience or relevant academic credentials of any kind, people still keep giving her a platform.

DADT is not a policy, it's a statute. Presumably, the Dems have the votes to pass a new statute repealing DADT and Obama would sign it. But he can't do anything by himself.

DBL, as with anything regarding Obama and LGBT people, my mantra is, "I'll believe it when I see it."

I don't think he'd veto the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (repeal of ban on LGBTs) should it cross his desk, but he won't do anything to get it there, either.

…Obama will face at least some resistence from the far-right.

Yah, but to me it’s what will happen in the Senate that will tell the tale, asked or not. Where will the 60 votes come from? I may be able to see getting to 54-56, but 60? As a gay guy I want it done yesterday, but at tis point I do not want to see a bruising fight, a narrow loss, an energized right, and other important initiatives delayed.

We've been, rightly IMHO, slamming BushCo for e.g. ditching good translators etc. if found gay. What is the current situation, does it depend on whether in active combat or support roles, etc? I can imagine and sympathize with ground troops having misgivings about gay soldiers (would they have conflicts about seeking partners, etc?), how much should we value that over liberal type rights promotion?

Sooner the better with respect to both common decency and politics. Big payoff for the Would-Be Lincoln to get this done pronto.

1. Sit down the big wigs and tell 'em it's gonna happen.
2. Make another awesome speech on the subject. Bring in sacked translators as props if possible.
3. Get praised for leadership, compared to Lincoln. Further marginalize already increasingly obsolete Republican party and reap the political benefits. Oh, and help gay people get some closer to equality in the U.S.

So let's get to it.

"I can imagine and sympathize with ground troops having misgivings about gay soldiers"

Is this issue really real? The combat veterans I've talked to have all said it wasn't an issue in combat. They were a lot more concerned about how good a soldier was than whether he was gay. I could see it being a problem in peacetime, but once the bullets are flying, it would seem our soldiers would have more important things to worry about.

"The combat veterans I've talked to have all said it wasn't an issue in combat. They were a lot more concerned about how good a soldier was than whether he was gay. I could see it being a problem in peacetime, but once the bullets are flying, it would seem our soldiers would have more important things to worry about."

This. As an active duty soldier, I find this statement pretty dead-on. Unit cohesion in a stressful situation transcends whatever sexual orientation you are, just as much as it would for religion and race.

I can imagine and sympathize with ground troops having misgivings about gay soldiers (would they have conflicts about seeking partners, etc?), how much should we value that over liberal type rights promotion?

OK Rebw I'm glad to hear you don't see a problem, maybe most don't, but we should seek find easy accommodation for the rest. I do think from polls most military opinion is shifting your way.

As a straight guy, I have to say I am discusted by continuing marginalization of people in this country, whether it is LGBT people or race or religion or whatever. I sincerely hope DADT is repealed, but I see Keith G's point that if we push too hard, too soon and fail to get the votes in the Senate, then the only thing we accomplish is to energize the far-right. Better to take a little time and be sure we have the votes. The day is coming when DADT will be history.

Better to take a little time and be sure we have the votes.

Obama can take the lead on this and make it happen, I think. Hemming and hawing and sitting on hands is what gave us the current Sam Nunn shitty solution.

Dave Ross [a Seattle radio personality known for topical song creation on issues of the moment] wrote the DADT Tango some years ago ['cuz of "dancing around the issue"] with IIRC the lines:

"Don't ask, don't tell, and you can serve your country well
Cuz if the other fellows knew, they might all want to try it too."

Let's see now. A service member, who is fully capable of serving next to a closeted gay service member, gets a major case of the heebie jeebies if he knows that same fellow-service member to be gay, and the wingnuts want the military leadership to pander to that kind of squeamishness!?

Do we really want service members who are that lily-livered? Doesn't the public have a right to expect more, uh, courage from our military personnel?

actually, when you enlist you are asked about sexual orientation and/or experiences along with bedwetting.

actually, when you enlist you are asked about sexual orientation and/or experiences along with bedwetting.

I guess that (mostly the latter) would explain why so many Young Republicans don't even bother enlisting and instead go the Chickenhawk route.

Nifty! I contributed to a Carpetbagger... I mean: Washington Monthly post. I feel so orange.

Shut up, Neil. Seriously. Just STFU. You and every other right wing hack I've ever heard bleating on this topic have convinced yourselves that once the ban is lifted, gays will start running through the barracks in dresses and boas, demanding MWR-sponsored mandatory-attendance gay porn nights. Get over yourselves and your weird obsession with gay sex. FFS, I'm a gay veteran, and I think about gay sex less than you people do!

Lifting the ban will not change a damn thing except that gay people will not be automatically discharged and have our veterans benefits yanked if we're outed. THAT'S IT. Those who are in a safe atmosphere/MOS like MI or the medical field, where people are actually critical thinkers, will continue to come out as we see fit. Those in the 82nd Airborne with Luddite idiots like my 20 year old brother will continue to stay closeted because to come out would be suicide at the hands of macho thugs with guns. We still won't have any protection, recognition, or command sponsorship for our families because DOMA will still be federal law. We'll still be hated and treated like shit by "christian" leadership and denied promotions the same as gays in the civilian world.

Christ on a rotating water cracker, hasn't Big Pharma given you people a pill to help you think critically yet? Could you TRY to take a walk in my combat boots before you tell me how they fit?

Neil-- it seems like your argument would apply just as easily to racial integration of the armed forces, since there surely were white soldiers who were uncomfortable serving with blacks. I don't see why bigots should be entitled to a heckler's veto in the armed forces or anywhere else.

While fully integrating openly gay individuals into military service is vital, I think it's important to recognize how far the paradigm has shifted in our favor over the last 17 years. DADT is often criticized these days as a repressive policy, and of course it is, but bear in mind that when Clinton introduced it in 1992 it was a pro-gay measure. The fact that it's now being defended by homophobes is a good sign that we've got them playing defense on this issue.

The main point of repealing DADT would of course be to allow gays and lesbians to serve their country without having to lie about who they are. An added benefit just might be to discourage the most bigoted yahoos out there from enlisting. Extreme homophobes are probably also the type of people who go along with making naked prisoner pyramids, torture, shooting civilians, and other sociopathic behavior we would do well to weed out.

Twenty of 26 NATO countries and Israel allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Do you see a lot of coverage of the events in Gaza along the lines of 'Those fruity Jews have morale problems'? Me neither. Just standardize the policy in NATO like the ammunition and move on.

Nice, Keori. Real nice. You just may be needing a little boost from Big Pharma, Dear.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Did I offend your delicate sensibilities, JustMudd? Tell you what, to make it up to you, if I can get in to see the VA at some point in the next few months about my hearing (service-related deafness, thanks for asking) and manage to squirrel some smelling salts out of the dispensary, I'll be sure to send them your way so someone else's shitty reality won't send you to the fainting couch.

OK Rebw I'm glad to hear you don't see a problem, maybe most don't, but we should seek find easy accommodation for the rest.

There's a thing called honorable discharge.

On the other hand, Keori, your comments made me smile.

BTW: Not being as selfless as you, my hearing loss (marginal) was caused by years of parttime work at a very "in" dance club. Go figure.

With Respects,

Keori. You weren't drafted. Cry me a river.

Mr Mudd, being the curious type, I am wondering just what distinction you are trying to make between enlistees and volunteers?

You and every other right wing hack I've ever heard bleating on this topic have convinced yourselves that once the ban is lifted, gays will start running through the barracks in dresses and boas, demanding MWR-sponsored mandatory-attendance gay porn nights.

You won't be surprised that a lot of people who are in favor of DADT or an outright ban are the same people who are opposed to enforcing the rules against harassment in the armed forces. If you let gays serve openly, you have to say that you will enforce the rules against their colleagues harassing them, which means you'll have to enforce the rules against harassing women, too, and then the whole macho thing falls apart.

If there was one uniform code of sexual conduct that all members of the armed forces had to follow and that was enforced equally, the issue of gays in the armed forces would quickly become a non-issue, but too many people have too much tied up in dick-swinging to be willing to do it.

Keori. You weren't drafted. Cry me a river.

Good to know you don't think that volunteers in the military have a right to complain about anything. Hey, let's cut the budget to the VA -- those wounded soldiers and Marines knew they could get their legs blown off if they volunteered to serve in Iraq, so why should we have to pay for the medical care of people so stupid as to volunteer to go there?

Elaine Donnelly, the founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, which supports the ban, said the number of discharges under "don't ask, don't tell" could be reduced to near zero if induction forms contained a question about sexual preference. -- Military Times

Actually... in her own twisted way, she might have a point (except for the use of the word "preference"). If people are asked, point blank, "are you gay?" and answered "yes", they wouldn't be allowed into the military in the first place. Therefore, discharges on sexual orientation grounds *would* be reduced to near zero (to zero, actually, if everyone told the truth). Thus saving the military lots of money in training them only to boot them out, bare ass to the ice (which is what a dishonorable discharge amounts to), the moment a photo of their "significant other" is discovered over their bunk.

If you let gays serve openly, you have to say that you will enforce the rules against their colleagues harassing them, which means you'll have to enforce the rules against harassing women, too, and then the whole macho thing falls apart.

Mnemosyne, you hit the nail on the head. With the rate of women being raped and murdered by their own straight male comrades going through the roof, I'd say the worst purveyor of criminal sexual immorality in the armed forces are the straight men who cover up these crimes and send these guys home to kill their wives. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid dyke who shouldn't whine because, after all, I wasn't drafted. I chose to enlist and serve ten honorable years, and become a senior NCO. Shame on me.

My grievance with Keori is that the slam on Neil was entirely inappropriate, in that as far as I've seen he's neither a right-wing hack or a homophobe but was simply asking a question.

My grievance with this topic is that it's like bitching about the color of the lifeboats on the Titanic.

My grievance with Keori is that the slam on Neil was entirely inappropriate, in that as far as I've seen he's neither a right-wing hack or a homophobe but was simply asking a question.

Neil's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I doubt he meant to be offensive, but at some point willful ignorance becomes about as bad as active malice. He's done his share of pouncing all over people for posts he didn't even understand, so he can take his lumps from Keori like a big boy.

exlibra: while I agree that Donnelly could be right in a twisted way, I think you missed it a little bit.

the number of discharges under "don't ask, don't tell" could be reduced to near zero if induction forms contained a question about sexual preference

Well, sure. Since you *asked*, you couldnt then discharge someone under "dont ask, dont tell". You've already blown your part of the bargain, so you couldnt discharge them.

Keori. You weren't drafted. Cry me a river.

Just curious: Do you say the same thing to military folk who, for example, complain that they're on their fifth tour of duty in Iraq or don't have the body armor they need or can't get treated for PTSD?

Shortstop, that would be yes. I've had a soldier group since '04. I've seen heard lots of complaints, contrived or not. Being sympathetic does not help. Being realistic does.

JustMudd, you're not an officer's wife by any chance, are you? Or a VA "counselor?" Because I've heard that same horseshit from privileged bitches whose husbands' Academy rings insulated them from the harsh realities of military life. I've heard this shit from lowest-bidder contract psychiatrists/psychologists/"counselors" whose idea of therapy was to encourage returned soldiers with PTSD to take it out on their wives, and who treated women vets like dumb whores. "Suck it up" is what you say to a kid who just had his favorite toy taken away because he didn't clean his room. "Suck it up" is not what you say to soldiers with real issues.

But then, you've never been enlisted, have you?

And Neil's been a willfully ignorant right-wing hack (or at least a very convincing facsimile) since CBR. He gets no sympathy from me.

JustMudd, you're not an officer's wife by any chance, are you?

Ouch. I dunno about JustMudd, but I am. Although I was never insulated. Maybe because we were a dual service household the first years of our marriage, and I had the tougher job.

Anyway, I agree with the points you are making, regardless of rank.

Being sympathetic does not help. Being realistic does.

Mmmm, this appears to be the crux of the problem. You view legitimate complaints about our soldiers not being properly outfitted, respected and treated as "unrealistic" and cries for "sympathy," rather than useful observations about ways that our military must improve.

Blue Girl,

Heh, I have noticed that in dual military couples, realism tends to thrive a little more than in a couple made up of the Academy grad and his trophy wife. Good on you. Something else I noticed in my years of seeing to the care and feeding of my enlisted troops is that more and more military women have civilian husbands. There's a whole other host of social phenomena that go along with THAT dynamic...but that's a post for another time. Suffice to say that Mnemosyne is right when she says that there is an awful lot of needless dick-swinging going on among the ranks. Good to see another vet here.