http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_go_ot/gays_in_military

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - The Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the Pentagon adopted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays says he no longer opposes allowing them to serve openly. ADVERTISEMENT John Shalikashvili, who retired in 1997 after four years as the nation's top military officer, had argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units. He said he has changed his mind after meeting with gay servicemen. "These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's New York Times. His view could carry weight at a time when advocates of lifting the restriction on gay service members argue that the military — under the strain of fighting two wars — can ill-afford to exclude any qualified volunteers. It's not clear, however, how much enthusiasm Congress will have for pressing the matter. While many Democrats have denounced the policy as discriminatory, many Republicans have supported it, and members may be reluctant to revisit such a divisive issue. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential contender in 2008, recently called the military policy "very effective." Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record) on Tuesday hailed Shalikashvili's article and said he would try this year to revive legislation forcing the military to eliminate the policy. In 2005, Meehan, D-Mass., introduced a similar bill, which eventually attracted 122 co-sponsors, including Republican Chris Shays of Connecticut and Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont. "There is no place in this country for discrimination, be it on the basis of race, creed or sexual orientation, and there is certainly no place for institutional discrimination codified in federal statute," Meehan said in a statement. The current policy, based on legislation passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate, states that gays and lesbians may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and gay service members may not tell. Over the years thousands have been dismissed under this policy. Shalikashvili is not the first former senior military officer to change his mind about gays in the military, though he is perhaps the most prominent. John Hutson, a retired two-star Navy admiral who was the Navy's top lawyer, said Tuesday he thinks the nation has undergone so much cultural change over the past decade that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would enhance rather than weaken the cohesion of fighting units. "I think it will absolutely happen," Hutson said in a telephone interview, but probably not during the Bush administration. Shalikashvili said he expects fierce debate over gays in the military this year as Congress considers President Bush's call for expanding the size of the Army, which is stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shalikashvili cautioned, however, against pushing for repeal of the ban early in the new Congress, which he said should be focused on urgent priorities like developing a better strategy in Iraq and healing divisions over the war. "Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track," he wrote in the Times article. In explaining his shift on the issue, Shalikashvili also cited a new Zogby poll, commissioned by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, of 545 U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It reported that three quarters said they were comfortable around gay men and lesbians. The poll, published in December, also said 37 percent opposed allowing gays to serve openly, while 26 percent said they should be allowed and 37 percent were unsure or neutral. Of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe it hurt morale. C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocate for gay rights, called Shalikashvili's article "enormously significant." Osburn said it reflects a growing trend of military leaders supporting repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy."

first thing i thought was that no one is really signing up for the military anymore, so by making the army gay friendly, they will attract more people for stuff like iraq

1/3/2007 3:31:36 AM

Not to go all West Wing on y'all, but the fact is, introducing mixed-race units back in the day upset the unit, and nobody is saying that was a bad idea. It might be difficult for a little while, but since letting gays openly into the military is inevitable (and it is), and since we need troops now, let's just get it over with, deal with the problems for the whole year or two that they'll persist, and be done with it.

I've seen very little evidence, statistically or anecdotal, that suggests that your average military man really gives that much of a shit.

1/3/2007 3:47:21 AM

The only thing that I have heard that has made me even think this would cause a problem would be to put this into the context of something straight people would understand. The majority of military personel are 18-30ish. Most if not all of them still have raging hormones. Despite strict military training they are still human. So take a 22 year old straight male and put him in the position of taking showers with young, fit (possibly attractive) females and tell me how comfortable they (the women) would be. Could a gay (or straight) person be mature about it and not let it become uncomfortable for anyone? Sure. But attraction is generally amplified by the veiwing the naked body of the sexual persuasion to which you are attracted to and the military is highly unlikely to make showers and sleeping quarters to cater to special needs.

1/3/2007 4:12:21 AM

Quote :

" So take a 22 year old straight male and put him in the position of taking showers with young, fit (possibly attractive) females and tell me how comfortable they (the women) would be."

that depends more on what position the young, attractive, fit females are in than what position the 22 year old straight male is in.

1/3/2007 7:51:41 AM

1/3/2007 8:06:52 AM

haha marko for the win

1/3/2007 8:32:00 AM

Indeed.

1/3/2007 6:38:26 PM

Roman has a good point...how would you feel taking a shower with a gay guy thats checking you out? I'm sure it would make most of us really uncomfortable.

1/3/2007 6:51:43 PM

What does it matter if someone is checking you out?

1/3/2007 7:09:41 PM

i'm not in the military so it really wouldn't matter to me.

1/3/2007 7:14:18 PM

are you scared that someone looking at your penis might turn you gay?

1/3/2007 7:21:27 PM

are you scared that it won't?

1/3/2007 7:22:09 PM

It's my deep dark dream that I get turned gay by someone looking at me in the shower.

1/3/2007 7:25:37 PM

well what did make you gay then?

you know how they say "every joke has a little bit of truth to it"

[Edited on January 3, 2007 at 7:28 PM. Reason : fda]

1/3/2007 7:27:20 PM

so...

does this mean that patrick mchenry will finally be able to do something useful for the country?

1/3/2007 7:38:28 PM

Quote :

"What does it matter if someone is checking you out?"

I think gays ought to be allowed in the military, but it certainly could be construed as sexual harassment to be checked out while you were naked.

Will it make a woman want me if I gawk at her naked in the shower? Probably not. Will it make her uncomfortable? It might.

1/3/2007 7:39:45 PM

I think the main problem is that most people in the army are uneducated and intolerant. The same applied to blacks in the military, but there was a lot less Christian/moral basis. This is a good idea in thought, bad idea in reality.

1/3/2007 7:49:40 PM

Quote :

"I think the main problem is that most people in the army are uneducated and intolerant."

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

1/3/2007 9:05:28 PM

Quote :

"I think the main problem is that most people in the army are uneducated and intolerant."

1/3/2007 9:09:22 PM

I'd buy that.

1/3/2007 9:10:29 PM

If the British can have openly gay men and women in their military, attend gay pride parades to boost recruitment, and even their boy/girl scouts allow openly gay members since programs like these tend to follow the nations military... I think we aren't so dissimilar from the English so as not to be able to find our own way to make it work. But there is the fact that god made the brits lose the American colony as pre-emptive punishment for knighting Ian McKellen.

[Edited on January 3, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2007 9:50:34 PM

Quote :

"I think the main problem is that most people in the army are uneducated and intolerant. The same applied to blacks in the military, but there was a lot less Christian/moral basis. This is a good idea in thought, bad idea in reality."

Ill-concieved on so many levels, it's actually amusing.

1/3/2007 10:04:22 PM

^ Yes, I would even call it Kerryesque.

1/3/2007 11:00:58 PM

have to get that little attack in against Kerry don't you.

1/3/2007 11:10:45 PM

^

Quote :

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

John Kerry

Quote :

"Kerry’s troop-bashing remarks belie the truth about the educational level of U.S. troops. According to figures readily available on the Internet, 99.9 percent of the enlisted forces have at least a high school education, 73.3 percent have some college, 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours, and 4.7 have a bachelor’s degree. What’s more, over 85 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees – 70.7 percent have master’s degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees."

Quote :

"Sen. John McCain, another Vietnam veteran, also called on Kerry to apologize, saying: 'The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat."

Quote :

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended."

John Kerry

Quote :

"Kerry's blunder could kill his ambitions to run for president in 2008, said Jeffrey Berry, a Tufts University political science professor. 'He couldn't have been more inept,' Berry said. 'John Kerry represents everything that Democrats have come to dislike about their own party--weakness, indecisiveness, strategic errors--and this just adds to it."

[Edited on January 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM. Reason : . ]

1/3/2007 11:27:21 PM

this just in. John Kerry is the only politician to ever stick his foot in his mouth. Ever.

1/3/2007 11:50:47 PM

^ No, he's not. But it's more like his own foot kicked his own ass off the list of presidential contenders--and even vice-presidential contenders.

1/4/2007 12:05:34 AM

I guess throwing a red herring is better than actually talking about the topic. But if my positions were as felonious as Hooksaw's I'd obfuscate the truth as will.

1/4/2007 12:10:30 AM

^ Motherfucker, STFU! For the record, (1) I am a decorated veteran of the United States Army--and I know your weenie-looking ass is not. And (2) I think the country and the armed forces are ready for gays to serve openly in the military.

As with any social change of this magnitude, however, there will be initial problems. Surprised, bitch?

1/4/2007 12:29:58 AM

Well at least it got you contributing to the topic discussion as opposed to taking pot shots at Kerry. And do you want a cookie (or a medal) for you military service? Does that give you a monopoly on opinion?

1/4/2007 12:35:14 AM

^ No, goddammit! But I'm tired of the same [OLD] bullshit attacks from you and your buddies--if you must attack, try to think of something new.

I brought up Kerry because a post reminded me of his blunder earlier this year. And it was no small blunder, either. As a veteran, I was actually offended, and it just struck me as more of the same Kerry elitism.

As for your comment ("And do you want a cookie (or a medal) for you military service?), no, you'll never have to say thank you--and I don't expect that you would. On Veterans' Day, however, I will remember your lack of appreciation, and I will be saddened at the realization that there are many more unappreciative individuals like you.

1/4/2007 12:53:09 AM

Quote :

"does this mean that patrick mchenry will finally be able to do something useful for the country?"

Haha, no, he is still useless.

1/4/2007 1:02:55 AM

I am glad that you mistake my disregard for your positions and inability to cope with alternate viewpoints as being unappreciation for military service. It only furthers my validation that you are merely a disgruntled looney wingnut. You heard Kerry's comment the way you wanted to hear it. Could he have articulated it better, sure. But your side of the aisle is in NO position to talk about verbal gaffs, makaka.

1/4/2007 1:09:35 AM

^

Quote :

"And do you want a cookie (or a medal) for you military service?"

HockeyRoman

If a mistake was made, you made it. Once again, you have no idea what "[my] side of the aisle" is.

BTW: Concerning the errors in your post, "gaffe" is the preferred spelling and "macaca" is the correct spelling, know-it-all.

1/4/2007 1:49:00 AM

Quote :

"As for your comment ("And do you want a cookie (or a medal) for you military service?), no, you'll never have to say thank you--and I don't expect that you would. On Veterans' Day, however, I will remember your lack of appreciation, and I will be saddened at the realization that there are many more unappreciative individuals like you."

Let me know when you've fought for my freedoms and maybe I'll thank you. But I have to tell you, in the past 60 years, not one US soldier has fought for American freedoms. They've merel fought for the desires of the global economy and neo-American imperialism.

1/4/2007 1:56:26 AM

If I am an alleged know it all then what does that make the person who corrects my spelling? And since I am appearently oblivious to your plight, then please enlighten all of us whipersnappers as to the ways and means of the victimized veterans who get their jollies from sparring with evil liberals.

1/4/2007 1:56:43 AM

^^ Jesus Christ!

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, man.

1/4/2007 2:12:08 AM

awww, the poor widdle weteran is upset i'm not bowing down to worship him.

1/4/2007 2:13:25 AM

^^^ WTF?! BTW, "know it all" (sic) is a compound element, dumbass (e.g., "know-it-all").

[Edited on January 4, 2007 at 2:16 AM. Reason : ^]

1/4/2007 2:15:13 AM

^^

1/4/2007 2:16:48 AM

Thanks Webster! Did you learn that while fighting for our freedoms? Man, I have so much to be thankful of your existence. But that seems to be your trend. When you can't contibute to relivent discussion you throw red herrings and then turn into a spelling/grammar ninja. How cute.

Maybe you can dig up what John Kerry or Hugo Chavez thinks about gays in the military since you like to ride their nuts so much.

1/4/2007 2:20:46 AM

Hero



Not Hero

1/4/2007 2:20:53 AM

^ How would you know?

1/4/2007 2:22:55 AM

Charles Thomas defended my freedoms during a War against a nation who declared war on the United States. soldiers now aren't doing that.

1/4/2007 2:27:57 AM

But...but...they declared war on us by flying planes into the world trade center on that fateful day of 9/11. And we all know that those terrorists had strong links with Saddam's Iraq and all of his weapons of mass destruction. Why do you hate America?

1/4/2007 2:30:58 AM

Well, you college-educated boys should recognize an either-or fallacy of logic when you see one, right? The choices are "Hero" or "Not Hero"--according to the nutsmackr ideology? No, thank you, I don't want to play anymore.

1/4/2007 2:39:51 AM

maybe if you took the time to research Charles Thomas you'd understand why he is a hero.

1/4/2007 3:54:41 AM

^ Never said he wasn't. I simply won't accept your logical fallacy.

1/4/2007 3:56:23 AM

it's not a logical fallacy.

1/4/2007 4:06:26 AM

^ Your either-or premise most certainly is--look it up.

1/4/2007 5:16:25 AM