Given the right-wing hysteria surrounding his budget restructuring proposal, Gates probably figures he can only handle one apoplectic response at a time.

Bad tactics. Given that they will be as apoplectic as possible over either issue taken separately, having them considered simulataneously seems like a good idea--they can't ge t any more apoplectic.

Hmm. I voted for Patrick in 2006, but he's moved a bit into Blue Dog territory. I do like this, however.

And Patrick, don't think I'll forget you stumping at the Bristol SEPTA station three years ago in favor of universal health care!

I think that Gates is more worried about the generals than about Congress. He's trying to butter up the brass. They know that DADT is on the way out, and won't particularly miss it. But like most humans, especially those who belong to a powerful guild, they like the feeling of control and don't like to be told what to do. Gates will let their hand pull the trigger in their own way, because he needs their support (or at least muted opposition) in other areas. It's smart politics, if justice delayed.

And it does have one other advantage. If the generals have bought in, the military can be surprisingly progressive. Look at its record on race. They have proven, more than any other institution, that aggressive affirmative action can coexist with aggressive meritocracy.

It's ironic that some of the exact same rhetoric that is used as an excuse to keep or kick gays out of the military, i.e. unit cohesion, not wanting to share quarters and all the other shit, is almost verbatim to what was said about why we needed a segregated military prior and during WWII. I truly hope Pres. Obama does the same thing for our gay brothers and sisters as Truman did for our black brothers and sisters after the end of WWII.

I'd like to remind all the GOP idiots out there that the Israeli army has always allowed both women and gays (of both sexes) to serve.

I defy anyone to say that army lacks in skill, discipline or morale.

I'm so sick of this stupid bigotry.

Republicans will get away with exploiting American homophobia as long as Democrats remain spineless.

I just can't wait for that day that everyone just seems to know is coming. The day that nothing more important than gay civil rights is going on. The day where there are no taxes and no budget deficit. There's no conflict around the world or domestically. There's triple digit economic growth that leads to a cleaner more sustainable environment.

That will be a good day for us gay people because then, and only then, can we ask for the Constitution to apply to us as it does others.

The abolition of DADT can't come soon enough for me. But what I also want to happen simultaneously is an enforced commitment from the officer corps to make it work. What I'm worried about is all of those assaultive felons that we've waivered into uniform over the past few years getting a free hand to literally gay bash while the brass turns a blind eye -- just as they did (and are still largely doing) when women were finally allowed to serve with men and were harrassed, humiliated, raped and even killed for their trouble. What's that phrase the right likes to use toward our military folks? Oh yeah, "Thank you for your service."
. . . jim strain in san diego.

The only way you can fail on this issue is to be too timid. This is an opportunity for a classic pincer movement, where social conservatives can be crushed between their superstitions and the facts. None of their doomsday scenarios about having gays in the military have materialized. Only the older generation supports bigotry as policy.

Push forward. Draw them into the open. Let everyone see the freaks before they die off, so everyone will remember, like they remember the integration riots at southern schools fifty years ago. Let them pose for the images we will beat them over the head with for the next fifty years.

Isn't there something in the US Constitution
about the military and the right to bear arms?

What I'm worried about is all of those assaultive felons that we've waivered into uniform over the past few years getting a free hand to literally gay bash while the brass turns a blind eye -- just as they did (and are still largely doing) when women were finally allowed to serve with men and were harrassed, humiliated, raped and even killed for their trouble.

I've heard some commentators claim that the reason the military doesn't want DADT repealed is that they would then have to actually enforce the codes of conduct that are in place to protect service members from one another. It's one thing to have a bunch of women complaining about being raped and/or harassed -- it's quite another if you have a nice former Eagle Scout telling his story to all of the networks.

Please don't fall into the trap of using "serve their country" to mean "serve in the military". Diplomats serve too. Don't buy into the right's militarism = nationalism = patriotism = virtue framing.

I have to wonder why any gays would now want to serve. Wouldn't they say, "Oh, we weren't good enough to serve before, whether as soldiers or as translators. Now that the Mr. Bush's Glorious Adventure is crashing and burning, you want us all the sudden? Kiss off"?

for conservative activists and policy makers, reason, evidence, and common sense are largely irrelevant in this debate

That's true for every issue, not just this one.

Another thing to remember: the repeal of DADT will severely hamper any continued resistance to complete equal civil rights for gays/lesbians.
And the right-wingers know it.

I have gay family members and friends. I'm all for dumping DADT, and wish it never existed. But I do think this is something to hold for late in the year, post budget. Not just because it would give the GOP something to thrash about at now. But also because it seems like we are getting some forward momentum on gay marriage. It's extremely slow, but there are positives here and there. If we get more positives, the better.

DADT is injust. It is going to go away. But it strikes me as a better issue for Novermber or December. I would like to see some strategy applied to it. We Dems have been pretty crappy on strategy over the past few decades. :/

John

Dean @1725:

People join the military for all kinds of reasons. I joined the Navy out of a desire to serve in the traditions of my grandfathers, and to run away from an oppressive religious family. My queer sexual orientation or the surrounding politics never factored into the decision.

What I would like to see is for LGBT people to show up at recruiting stations en masse after the ban is lifted, and tell the recruiters they would simply LOVE to join up, but they won't fight for other people's rights in other countries that they don't have at home.