Gone. Voted out by the US Senate two days ago on Saturday the 18th, the bill is now headed to the desk of Mr Obama where, clearly, it will be signed. From The Washington Times:
Setting the stage for a major social change, the Senate voted Saturday to overturn the military’s policy banning openly gay and lesbian troops, know as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” sending the repeal to President Obama for his signature.The 65-31vote, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, marks the beginning of the end for the 17-year-old policy, though the Pentagon and White House will need to make certain certifications before the ban officially is repealed.
I would ask my readers, particularly those who have served in the military itself and are aware of not just the societal but mechanical and operational ramifications of this bill, to weigh in please.
BZ
Truthfully I wouldn’t care. IF the guy next to me was gay and killed many jihadi’s… So be it. IF he tried to “Cover my ass” literally then there would be serious problems.
To me this is just the next step in the gay agenda. It’s utter BULLSHIT. It’s forcing a label on someone based on their “Sexual Preference” not on their race or character. They are saying basically “I take it in the rear so accept me”…. Next step anyone? What will the next “Fight” be over? Will it be over our right to NOT BE GAY? will the gay agenda be silenced only when all are gay? I am sick to my gut at what this nation has become.
Honestly, I doubt much will change. You’ll have one or two “openly gay” soldiers who make the news regularly to “advance the agenda” but for the most part they’ll not be accepted by their brothers in any active way.
The passage of this bill simply means that the military can’t do anything about it. It doesn’t mean that soldiers have to invite them along for beers after work or that they have to support them.
As anyone in the military knows, “Army of one” is bullshit. If you don’t have your brothers covering your ass you’re screwed.
Also, it ruins a lot of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” jokes… dammit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
jinksto…you said, “It doesn’t mean that soldiers have to invite them along for beers after work or that they have to support them.” Not yet, anyway…I wonder just how far they will “push” their agenda. Sorry. (I am not in the military, so I have no right to weigh in.)
My previous post had a misspelling…
@Sue I think you have as much right as any of those pushing this agenda to being with.
I see your point but in the end there’s no way that the Military can make a rule that “you must befriend this person even though his fundamental values are vastly different from your own”. A lone soldier is a very very lonely person.
In the end, I think this is more about the press coverage than an actual “advancement” of rights.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Two points:
Our military leaders asked for a large influx of troops in Afghanistan to do the job there. Bozama gave them less. Now things are going South there and what do we hear? “Our troops are failing in Afghanistan.” Surprise, surprise!
Fighting troops were asked their opinion of DADT and responded negatively. Our political leaders ignored them and passed this law. How do you think that’s gonna turn out?
Point two-
I was in a unit that was commanded by a member of a certain religious group. He surrounded himself with people of that same religious faction and made little attempt to disguise the fact he favored “his own kind”. They got the best jobs, promoted more quickly, and I’m sure their efficiency reports indicated they performed better.
When we have “openly gay” leaders in high positions, do you suppose this sort of behavior won’t happen?
It all stinks to high heaven and WILL NOT improve the performance of our military.
My reaction to this may shock some of my Conservative and Christian friends, but will come as no surprise at all to my Libertarian friends. I personally don’t care if a service member is a lesbian or a homosexual. I don’t care if they want to announce that they are homosexual. If it doesn’t affect their job performance, if it doesn’t affect their ability to serve in a position of military secrecy, if it’s not something they are doing on the job, why should it matter to me if they are homosexuals?
I also don’t care what anyone does or doesn’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
I don’t care how they do it, how often they do it or who they do it with. What a person does in privacy has NO effect on me, or my life, in any way. As long as they don’t tell me that I have to accept their sexual preferences, and as long as they keep their activities private, I honestly don’t care.
Anyone that has ever served knows, anyone that is serving right now knows, and anyone that has ever been a student of military history knows, homosexuals have always been a part of ALL military services, into antiquity. The military is a, pardon the pun, a target rich environment for a homosexual male.
Personally, I don’t believe that homosexuality is a normal function, and I can’t accept the idea that it is the natural way things should have evolved, but, somehow, I can’t help but believe that America is faced with far more important issues than who is wearing lacy pink panties under their BDUs.
Excellent, and thanks for taking the time to weigh in, folks. But I’m surprised no one has “gone” where, say, various forms of government have handled discrimination in terms of race and sex already. Bushwack and Sue almost touched on it. You have to do the “logical extension”. . .
There is also one other aspect. . .
BZ
Discussed this with my serving son. He told me fraternization is a big problem now and will only get worse with openly homosexual soldiers openly fraternizing.
Who wants to bet there won’t be a double standard for fraternization?
When I served, we had closeted homosexuals. We also had one, drunk, who tried to forcibly sodomize at knife point. He failed, and was gone in two days.
That situation got ugly as a racial component was involved. Whatever unit cohesion we may have developed was gone.
WSF, here are the two points yet unaddressed:
1. This is going to create an unprecedented ton of not only administrative paperwork, but administrative attention in terms of hours mandated be applied to “developing situations,” shall we say.
2. There is already civilian and tort precedent with regard to so-called “ostracization” of those protected classes. Persons have found themselves and, by extension, their organizations — subject to successful civil suit when individuals choose to disassociate themselves singly or in groups from various “protected classes” the likes of which homosexuals/lesbians represent.
This is now a door that, once opened and walked-through, is going to — in my opinion — have large unintended consequences.
BTW, I see these contentions in civil service every day. It isn’t as simple as one may think.
BZ
What I see happening is some gay activist in the military will get some sort of “Reprimand” the cry will be “It’s because I’m gay” and it will be public….This is a distraction at very least. And damaging to morale and military conduct at worst.
Fred is correct in his views, it really shouldn’t matter but to the “Gay” activists it does so much.
If you look at where the gay agenda has been achieved, San Francisco as a benchmark. You will notice the society in the area has a severe lack of discipline, an anything goes type mentality. Counter to the military is obvious.
The gay agenda proponents are also the most ANTI MILITARY group in our nation. Those that have been on the forefront of the DADT fight, are the very same groups that have protested at the recruiters….WHY would they want to be in the military? A foothold perhaps?
Bushwack: trust me, that’s preCISEly where this is going. No two ways about it.
Most people have NO idea how much time and money and labor will be spent on attempting to ameliorate “complaints” from even more “protected species.”
And YOUR tax dollars will be spent on these things. Once you create another immediate “victim class” in an institution that despises and indoctrinates against victimology, you have abetted the subsumation and gold-mining of said rigid institution. It is called the “military” and “militaristic” for a reason.
It isn’t about, at first blush, whether gays can serve; it IS, I submit, about every administrative and technical point that results subsequently.
BZ
Think: power and control, Bushwack; power and control. This is but another step.
Look for the Logical Extension.
BZ
Let me present this, as well:
It ISN’T about:
1. TOLERANCE;
It’s more appropriately a ramping-up from mere “tolerance” to
2. ACCEPTANCE
And then, further, to:
3. ADVOCACY.
It will soon get to the point where if you are NOT an “advocate,” then you are a BIGOT.
BZ
BZ
Out of the loop on the administration aspects; too many years in small private businesses. Perhaps some career military will have a better idea. I’m sure you are correct.