Originally Posted By markymouse It was Bill Clinton. He has since come out against DADT and DOMA. Mainstream America has come a long way on gay issues in the past couple of decades, including the Clintons.
Originally Posted By markymouse I do think some of us here and in the media are overstating the pro-inclusion tone of the report. The report found that nearly a third of men and women in uniform think inclusion of out gays would cause significant problems. And close to two thirds of combat troops think that. In a better world, the military would have been working on education and tolerance. Or Congress would at least direct them to start doing so. But the country is littered with out of work politicians who tried to reach across party lines to find solutions to difficult issues like this. Because polarized obstruction on one hand and finger pointing on the other is better for fundraising and cable news ratings.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The report found that nearly a third of men and women in uniform think inclusion of out gays would cause significant problems. And close to two thirds of combat troops think that.> Over 80% of white troops in 1948 did not want the armed forces integrated. 80 percent! Truman knew that and issued the executive order anyway (something Clinton could have and should have done, but Obama can not, since DADT is now enshrined into law, rather then merely being military policy) because it was the right thing to do. At least Clinton acknowledges now that he would get rid of it if he could - which is more than can be said of the likes of John McCain. Ask yourself: what was the problem in 1948? Black soldiers, or white attitudes towards black soldiers. Obviously, the latter. That's what had to change. If Truman had said "well, the troops don't want it, so our hands our tied," that would have been using the bigotry itself as the justification for continuing the bigotry. Which is what people like McCain are arguing for, but at least the Pentagon as a whole is no longer doing so. Guess what - it wasn't painless and didn't happen overnight, but the military got used to an integrated force more quickly than any of the naysayers could have imagined. The same will happen here. Considering where the country was racially in 1948, this is a far less radical change. Compare the two: a white soldier who didn't even have to share a drinking fountain with a black guy now having to take ORDERS from him if he was a superior officer? Vs. serving with the same gay people they've already been serving with, who can now just reveal that one part of themselves. The troops would get over this in 2 or 3 years, tops. Many of them are already over it, and have said so. For the ones who aren't: bigotry itself is no justification for continuing the bigotry.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The troops would get over this in 2 or 3 years, tops. Many of them are already over it, and have said so. For the ones who aren't: bigotry itself is no justification for continuing the bigotry.>> Bingo. Only 30% of the troops in 2010 have a problem with the gays. Far less than half. Over 80% of the troops in 1948 had a problem with the non-whites. Far greater than half. Sorry, but 30% is not enough to be concerned about. There will always be less than 100% consensus on any issue you care to imagine, so getting 70% consensus is fairly decent. Waiting for a percentage close to 100% is a deliberate stall tactic, because it will never arrive. McCain is a bigoted pigheaded throwback to darker times in our nation's history. Ditto for the other aging Republican politicians and pundits who defend him. McCain is no longer the "maverick" and has been replaced with a neocon clone. Too bad Arizona voters couldn't figure that out before the election. Apparently, the Senate Dems have the votes needed to repeal. I only hope they can get the job done before the new session begins. If they can't, I doubt DADT will be repealed for at least another decade.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's possible that if this Congress (i.e. the Senate, as it already passed the House easily) does not repeal DADT, the courts will step in. The Pentagon itself knows this, and prefers that Congress do it, as it would be less contentious, and they wouldn't have to worry about a higher court or eventually SCOTUS upholding it and having a several-year "nether-period" while it makes its way up the court system. Think about this for a second, though. About 70% of Americans want this repealed. It's hard to get that kind of consensus on anything. About 70% of the troops are okay with it. The House passed repeal overwhelmingly. The President favors it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Sec'y of Defense favor repeal (and Mullen was particularly eloquent - check out his testimony from this past week if you haven't seen it.) And even a majority of Senators have already voted in favor of repeal. Just not 60. Not enough to break the filibuster the last time they tried. Think about that. A literal handful of Republican Senators are holding up something overwhelmingly favored by American citizens, the troops themselves, the House, the White House, and the Pentagon brass. And the effect is to both treat some of our citizens as second class AND hurt our national security (and that's Mullen and others saying that, not just me.) The abuse of the filibuster means 4 or 5 old white guys can curtail civil rights for tons of Americans, and reduce our military effectiveness all by themselves. Amazing. There's still hope that they can persuade the Maine senators, Jim Webb (Dem., but voted against last time), Dick Lugar, Scott Brown, maybe even Lindsay Graham to vote for repeal (or at least to allow cloture). Some said they didn't want to "rush" the vote last time and wanted to wait to see what the Pentagon study said. So did McCain, but these others might have actually meant it. We'll see. Of course, ALL GOP Senators signed the letter saying "we won't even consider any other business until you give us extended tax breaks for millionaires," so THAT could derail it and screw up everything.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Sen. Webb voted for the NDAA in September. Here's the thing -- they will be too cowardly to let this thing come to a vote this time. Time is going to expire on the Congress for Christmas without any vote being taken on the NDAA and DADT repeal. It will never be brought up again in the 2011 Congress. The Republican led House will not allow any NDAA to pass with DADT repeal included.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Sen. Webb voted for the NDAA in September" Did he ultimately? He made so much noise about not doing so, I guess I assumed that was how he voted. If they don't vote on it this month, the courts will definitely get involved in the next couple of years. And I think if they had the guts, Obama, Mullen and Gates should make a joint statement saying they will NOT appeal any decisions against it. That will never happen, but it's a nice thought. But now that they've seemingly reached a deal on taxes, they could at least bring it up again this month and try to get a couple of the senators listed above to break the filibuster. They have cover with the report, and I could see Brown or Snowe or Collins doing it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<They have cover with the report, and I could see Brown or Snowe or Collins doing it.>> Snowe is in a tough position. She's not hard far right enough to win the Maine GOP primary in 2012. The remaining Maine Republicans, like in other states, are swinging hard to the right, while moderates are becoming Dems. Snowe is a definite moderate, and not crazy enough like McCain to sell out her moderate positions. The only chance she has of winning re-election in 2012 is either through a write-in candidacy like Murkowski did, or by becoming an Independent like Liebermann. I wish she would become an Independent and soon, given how often she supports the more progressive social issues, as a moderate Republican. If she were unfettered by the GOP "march in lockstep" machine, I believe we'd see more progressive voting from her. And I know she would vote to repeal DADT, along with Collins, if she didn't have the fear of winning her party's nomination in 2012 hanging over her head.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ///AND hurt our national security/// <How?> By tossing out perfectly qualified people. The most obvious example were the (gay) Arab linguists that were tossed out not so long ago. It was particularly lame because a). we have a shortage of Arab linguists, and b). These were essentially office jobs, without even the "fear factor" of "close quarters" or any of that crap. But they were in the military, they were gay - they had to go. Mullen made it clear that tossing out highly trained, perfectly capable people (of whatever specialty) hurts the military.
Originally Posted By barboy2 /// a). we have a shortage of Arab linguists/// We do? How many more do we need? I'm sure that the obscenely budgeted military has well enough means to recruit Arabic speakers---straight or gay--- if they truly need them. And Arabic isn't that obscure of a language anyway. It's not as if we need C3PO-like qualifiactions in our personnel who can speak 'Bocce'. ///b). These were essentially office jobs, without even the "fear factor" of "close quarters" /// Well, 'b' doesn't have much to do with "national security". Anyway, I don't buy the old "national security" angle. With or without homosexuals the US military is extremely powerful----powerful enough. You can have the equality argument though for I don't like gov't getting in the mix of adults who consent to sex with their same or different gender.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Anyway, I don't buy the old "national security" angle. With or without homosexuals the US military is extremely powerful----powerful enough. >> It's not as powerful as it used to be. We don't attract the talent that we used to in recruiting. Young people with skills would prefer to work for an organization that is more tolerant. Here's one example -- we are completely losing the war in cyberspace. China is kicking our butt, and we barely have a footprint in the world of cyber warfare. We can't walk onto any legitimate college campus and recruit talented computer wizards because we have no credibility in the community of smart, college students. They know we discriminate against their gay and lesbian friends and young people with brains want no part of that. So, we go back to the farms and inner cities to recruit soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are well equipped to fight World War II, but not the likes of China.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Young people with skills would prefer to work for an organization that is more tolerant.< We also prefer working for an organization that won't end with us bleeding out in some street after we lose our leg. >We can't walk onto any legitimate college campus and recruit talented computer wizards because we have no credibility in the community of smart, college students.< That's also because most of these computers wizards find it much more fun to fight the government. I'm looking at you RIAA.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "/// a). we have a shortage of Arab linguists/// We do? " Yes, we do. I have no idea of the absolute number they think we need, but I've read many places that we don't have enough. "Well, 'b' doesn't have much to do with "national security"." My point exactly. They can't even use the "close quarters" bugaboo for office jobs. "Anyway, I don't buy the old "national security" angle. " If you want to consider yourself more qualified than Adm Mullen on the question, knock yourself out.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///If you want to consider yourself more qualified than Adm Mullen on the question, knock yourself out./// Or more to the point: do I trust a career politician or common sense? I'll take common sense even if it paines me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 On the contrary, noting that kicking out highly trained and perfectly competent people for an irrelevant reason hurts the military IS common sense.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka An interesting article about how obsession with homosexuality is marginalizing evangelicals (I would have started another thread but we don't really need one, do we?): <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/gay-obsession-has-margina_b_777690.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...690.html</a> It has not just marginalized them politically...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>most of these computers wizards find it much more fun to fight the government. I'm looking at you RIAA.<< Just a minor little thing here - the RIAA has nothing to do with the government. It's a trade organization set up by the major record companies.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Thanks for that link, mele. It goes straight to the heart of the problem - christians. It is their intolerance against gays and their continual banging on the drum that allows this unmasked bigotry to fester within our society. They publicly equate homosexuality with incest, beastiality and pedophilia, and they do so proudly and clearly. There are no consequences or repercussions for stating such a patently offensive belief, because it's their "faith" and they're entitled to believe and profess anything they choose. As for McCain, I would respect him slightly more if he just came out and said what he truly believes - that gay and lesbian americans are second rate citizens undeserving of equality and unfit for service in the military. He'll have millions of people right there with him, and we could proceed with the debate from there. Instead it's years and decades of "further studies" and consultations. Who does he think he's kidding? Just declare your cards already - you don't like gays and lesbians for whatever reason, and you're opposed to granting them equal rights.
