Quote :

"...a reshaped Congress likely to pass the first major federal gay-rights bills. Wary conservative leaders, as well as gay-rights advocates, share a belief that at least two measures will win approval this year: a hate-crimes bill that would cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias, and a measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Also on the table — although with more doubtful prospects — will be a measure to be introduced Wednesday seeking repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the military. All three measures surfaced in previous sessions of Congress, at times winning significant bipartisan backing but always falling short of final passage. This year, with Democrats now in control and many Republicans likely to join in support, the hate-crimes and workplace bills are widely expected to prevail. "With liberals in control, there's a good possibility they'll both pass," said Matt Barber, a policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "They're both dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech." By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer, February 24, 2007"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/24/national/a101044S21.DTL&feed=rss.news

Any current or ex-military folks think this will help or hurt our armed forces recruiting/effectiveness?

3/7/2007 8:59:24 PM

I hope they do more than "repeal" the policy. They need to pass a law/policy that specifically says "yeah, they can serve" as well as one that deals w/ discrimination in the military wrt orientation. Remember, most discrimination laws do not apply to the military.

3/7/2007 9:05:21 PM

what was in place before the law? if before there was a "no gays in the military" law, then simply repealing it will do more harm than good. They would need to repeal it and enact a full non-discrimination law in its place.

3/7/2007 9:10:04 PM

hate crime legislation pisses me off.

3/7/2007 9:14:06 PM

so what is the rationale for this law anyway? it really baffles me, and it probably baffles the rest of the world too.

so if you deny someone a job because they are gay, you are in trouble

if you attack someone because they are gay, you get more punishment than for just attacking someone.

but if you are gay (openly), you can't serve in the armed forces????

and then america goes on preaching to other countries about democracy and human rights, while the biggest employer (the armed forces) openly discriminates against gays???

i am serious, what is the reason given for that by the gov? and how is it legal to do that? doesn't it contradict some laws or the constitution, or do the laws and the constitution not apply to the military?

3/7/2007 9:49:36 PM

Quote :

"Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year. As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years. When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion. In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve. The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has. Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems. 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. 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. But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. 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. By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose. John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997."

3/7/2007 9:50:51 PM

I think the military makes it clear that Officer/enlisted fraternization is off-limits as well as some other policies. As long as this was applied to gays as well as heteros, I'm OK with lifting the ban.

Anyone of sound mind and body who wants to serve their country in the military should be allowed.

3/7/2007 10:38:47 PM

I'm willing to bet that Wal-Mart employs more people than the US military, but that's just me...

3/7/2007 10:42:58 PM

I am against gays and coloreds being in the military.

3/7/2007 10:48:17 PM

what if they tell you they're just dirty?

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 10:49 PM. Reason : f]

3/7/2007 10:49:09 PM

I think they would work great in operation Human Shield!

3/8/2007 10:32:18 AM

good thing the new Congress is focusing on important things

3/8/2007 10:36:05 AM

I'd imagine a guy willing to take a bullet for you is going to trump his sexual orientation, and any problems you may have with that, in your judgment of him in the trenches beside you.

They are focusing on important things you imbecile

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5381113

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 10:40 AM. Reason : a]

3/8/2007 10:38:25 AM

yeah important things like losing the war

i just hope they get some really really really important things done, like legalizing gay marriage and banning prayer in school

3/8/2007 10:51:45 AM

well actually i've been watching cspan, and they have been working on implementing 9/11 commission recommendations the past couple days (at least in the senate, i'm not sure of what's been going on in the house).

3/8/2007 11:17:00 AM

lol you've been watching cspan

but seriously...what all got passed in that "First 100 Hours" or whatever that was supposed to be some huge deal?

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 11:19:29 AM

so ignore what's actually been going on. that's cool

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason : god forbid i actually get my opinions about congress 1st hand]

3/8/2007 11:21:42 AM

since you dont know the difference in humor and non-humor, even with an "lol" staring you in the face, i'll ask you again

what all got passed in that "First 100 Hours" that Pelosi was hyping up?

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 11:23:01 AM

anyhow, the 9/11 commission stuff was part of the 100 hour plan. i don't think it was completed in the 100 hours, but it has passed the house now and is in the process of debate in the senate.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : basically the senate takes far longer than the house, so 100 hours isn't nearly enough time]

3/8/2007 11:27:45 AM

Quote :

"so what is the rationale for this law anyway?"

If I remember correctly, the argument was one of unit cohesion: that when you have a group of men living in close quarters for an extended period of time under strenuous circumstances, the presence of an openly homosexual man would create morale issues (ie. bring out the homophobia in a significant number of soldiers) and thus destroy the ability of the unit to work as a group and depend on each other.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a rather badly implimented attempt at compromise by the Clinton administration to allow homosexuals to serve. However, the military hated it, and gay rights activists were very disappointed that the administration made such a lousy compromise. It didn't help either that with the regulation in place, the military began expelling homosexuals at a greater rate than before the new policy.

With attitudes towards homosexuality though, I see no reason why "Don't ask, don't tell" or any other sexual orientation ban should be in place. I agree with Earthdogg's comment: as long as they follow the same rules and regulations for fraternization and sexual harassment that are held for heterosexuals, then I see no reason why gender preference should be an issue. A law against discrimination based on sexual orientation (similar to those of gender and race) would also be helpful as well to keep the generals honest.

3/8/2007 1:14:04 PM

The military led the way with racial desegregation, and it worked well.

Hopefully this will have similar results.

3/8/2007 2:08:52 PM

the armed forces people that i know well all don't see a problem with allowing openly gay people into the military, so long as they follow the same rules as the rest and do their job.

3/8/2007 2:13:24 PM

Quote :

"well actually i've been watching cspan, and they have been working on implementing 9/11 commission recommendations the past couple days (at least in the senate, i'm not sure of what's been going on in the house)."

but not all of the recommendations, as pledged; specifically, the recommendation made to reorganize Congress to improve oversight and funding of the intelligence agencies

3/9/2007 4:00:01 PM

fucking women wanting the right to vote and shit.

3/9/2007 4:02:13 PM

Quote :

"Remember, most discrimination laws do not apply to the military."

True.

But on the issue of race, the military is one of the most progressive insitutions around. They did a complete 180 a while back and now have an outstanding record.

Women/gays...I dunno.

3/9/2007 7:22:46 PM

This certainly doesnt have a direct relation to this thread, but I think the idea is worth noting:

Just because all people deserve equal RIGHTS doesnt mean you want a 150 pound man to be a fireman who has to carry people out of burning buildings

I guess what I mean is, I think all people should have all rights in this country...and even though I personally think gay sex (with men) is gross, that doesnt mean I dont think gays should have rights...however with something like the military, the bond between the guys you are fighting for your lives and country with is important

If the reason a group of straight soldiers dont have the same bond with a gay soldier as they do with each (straight) other...even if the reason is because they are immature and ignorant...it still can affect chemistry

just thinkin out loud

3/9/2007 7:35:10 PM

I think the military and the country are ready for gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. And from what I understand, the "don't ask-don't tell" policy was a failure for gay rights, because separations from the military actually increased for a period after this policy was enacted.

3/9/2007 7:41:20 PM

It may affect cohesion at first, but they’ll get over it eventually and be better off for it. The UK actively targets recruitment at the gay community with success in boosting their military’s overall numbers. That strikes me as a lot smarter than our military kicking out needed military linguists for something that has no relation to someone’s skills in that area.

3/9/2007 8:25:06 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays

3/13/2007 9:59:10 AM

allowing gays in the military removes your right to privacy, if you allow gays i can see no argument against integrating men and women

3/13/2007 11:24:01 AM

Quote :

"Senior aides to the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — an opinion that gay advocacy groups deplored."

I always scratch my head when the government takes time out to call something immoral.

3/13/2007 11:27:23 AM

Kind of like taking time out to demand apologies for simple words

3/13/2007 11:28:14 AM

Quote :

" If the reason a group of straight soldiers dont have the same bond with a gay soldier as they do with each (straight) other...even if the reason is because they are immature and ignorant...it still can affect chemistry"

Right! Because, you know, gay men are less manly and just stand out in these "units." While everyone else is slogging through mud, they're flinging their limp wrists about and shouting "Hello, boys! What do you think you're doing!? My Prada is getting wet!"



I can say with some certainty who will benefit from repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It'll be the men and women already in the military, slogging through mud in Iraq, getting their legs blown off by IEDs, and getting along with their units very well, thanks for asking. And, chances are, their fellow servicemen -- cohesive as they are -- don't have a clue.

Because, you see, gay people -- not unlike the rest of humanity -- are remarkably adaptive.

And a bit stronger than you might think. Because these gay men and women, they're serving now, going through all the shit servicemen do -- especially in Iraq -- AND they're hiding their sexuality day to day, without missing a beat.

The military never had a choice whether gay people would serve. The question they must answer is whether considerable energy and willpower, currently in the service of discretion, may be put to better use.

3/14/2007 12:29:16 AM

all i gotta say is that if they allow gay dudes and dudettes to serve in the military, that makes it a whole hell of a lot harder for me to dodge any future draft for a war I oppose on moral grounds

3/14/2007 1:01:28 AM