It was a flawed policy to begin with since you are forcing people to live in secret. Hopefully, this will lead to people who got kicked out due to being gay. I also wouldn't celebrate til the actually vote takes place. If Obama can get this passed along with START, he accomplished quite a bit even after getting slammed in the mid-terms. Even the Tax battle has probably lead to ammunition for 2012 with the GOP doing everything in their power to save the rich a penny while holding the rest of us hostage.
I served in a different time, of course. Homosexuals (Gay hadn't really entered the common speech then) were certainly treated badly in the service then. If you were "found out", you didn't get a break. You'd get your ass kicked and then get kicked out.
I don't know how I feel about this. I don't think there is the worry about foreign agents blackmailing those they found out to reveal secrets - which was the reason I was always told was the reason gays didn't serve. But I wonder how the culture in the service, especially in combat units, is going to handle this. I hate to see the military being used as a social lab, so to speak.
I hope it all works out. I personally don't care where you put your parts, but I know not all people share my attitude.
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
65-31, it's on to Obama. This is how he wanted DADT to be handled, via Congress. With bills and law, so no one could carp about activist judges and executive orders. He took a lot of crap from the gay lobby over the time between his inauguration and today. But this is how it should have been done.
I didn't serve in the military but I am from and married into a military family. So my comments are barely qualified. I hear the argument that allowing gays to serve openly bestows them a special right. And soldiers aren't guaranteed rights. But I argue that no soldier has the right to his bigotry. If you don't like Catholics or blacks or women, you don't get to veto the order to serve alongside them either.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
I served from 89-2002 and I know there were gays and lesbians at every single place/command/ship I was ever assigned to. My first two roommates at my very first duty station were gay. Not "in the closet, act like you're not" gay, but full on flaming gay. It didn't bother ME, and I know a lot of people would say things and make accusations, but they would always just shrug it off and nothing on a command level was ever done. I knew a lesbian couple that married a gay couple so that they could all appear to be straight, and they could all get assigned to the same places all the time.
Of all the gays I knew, none of them were any more, or any less capable than any other service member.
People seem to hate DADT because it "discriminates" when in fact, it was set up to NOT discriminate against people. The idea being "well, you can serve, we wont ask if you're gay, and we don't want you to tell us you're gay".
Being able to serve in 'silence' was more than they were allowed before.
Now that it's all going to be done with, I am curious to see the real world effect. There are always going to be homophobes, ALWAYS. But, just like racism, it's going to be so frowned upon to show it, it will fade into the background. The hardest part is going to be reigning in the homophobia, and making a usable policy to deal with it, that commanding officers will actually use to deal with the problem people.
Either way, it's time the government ditch DADT and move along with other problems.
Originally posted by GrimisWhat I don't like is the smugness of the Democrats on this. DADT was a stupid policy and gays should have been allowed to serve as anybody else can.....
.....but Democrats never wanted to take responsibility for this policy, imagined by Democrats, implemented by Democrats, and passed by Democrats. Somehow, it was always the Republicans fault.
Glad to see it gone. One less thing Democrats can hypocritically blame on Republicans.
It was passed by Democrats due to Republicans continually blocking the passage from day one thanks the crazy religious who help elect them. DADT was done, because if Clinton had let them serve like he wanted, they would crucified him. Also, if this was a such a big deal for the GOP to get down why not under Bush? It also should be no shock that the people who voted against are drumroll please, the Republicans. Thankfully, some of the GOP has realized that it doesn't matter what the loony bigoted based thinks, when someone wants to serve their country regardless of their, race, creed, religion and sexual orientation they should be allowed too.
I was wondering where I heard his name before. He's the guy that got Liz Hurley pregnant and then dumped her. Most big money donars for any party have questionable ties, but I thought George Sorros was the DNC's biggest contributor.