Gay Patriot has an article in Pajamas Media about how gay liberals are perpetually disappointed by the politicians they help elect. This is in reference to how much ass-dragging is happening with the Obama administration on Don't Ask Don't Tell:
And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.Military.com notes that, contrary to conventional wisdom, it would actually require an act of Congress instead of just an order from the White House. But, it still seems as though Obama is waffling on a campaign promise that he could easily fulfill.
It's correct when Gay Patriot notes that gay issues aren't exclusively the realm of the democratic party. Some fellow reich-wingers have publicly stated that DADT has got to go including Ed Morrissey, CDR Salamander, and even the Sniper (no shit, the Sniper). I for one am for the repeal of the DADT, simply for the sake of no more awkward powerpoints for our troops during GMT sessions.
See what the others have said:
7 comments:
I'm for lifting the ban. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to serve their country (judging by what I've seen, most young people today won't serve their country anyway so we might as well let someone who wants to do it). Discipline and enforcement of regulations by superiors will prevent unprofessional behavior while on duty. But, playing devil's advocate, this will require a top-down effort for disicipline has been slowly eroding in the service since about 1992 (too much political correctness and sensitivity training starting with the Clinton years). Additionally, I'm with you on those awkward GMT sessions too; they gotta go.
What does conventional wisdom have to say about the president's authority, or lack thereof, to issue an executive order - not to repeal the DADT policy, of course - but to simply place a moratorium on further military discharges based on the DADT policy while repeal legislation makes its way through congress?
According to various media reports (largely unreliable in my view) the arguments against such an EO have to do with a number of factors...the military (leadership or troops or both?) is opposed to changing this policy...the president doesn't want to be seen as bucking the law...better to work toward consensus on an issue like this...general political expediency...
Do any of these factors ring true with anyone here?
The military was originally opposed (more or less) to gays serving back in the early 1990s, but the times have changed. I think it's a mixed bag nowadays, but the military will follow orders regardless.
MkotyK88,
In this day and age when it's hard to get people to serve at all, I agree that we shouldn't turn people away.
It needs to happen. It will be a bumpy road just like it was when blacks and women were integrated into the military, but it will smooth out.
BTW, I'm more of a centrist than a reich winger. I lean left on social issues, right on defense and finance. I think you should be able to have a gun AND an abortion.
Oh, and your link for me was dead. That site no longer exists since I moved The Sniper to www.thesniper.us
One more thing... think of how much beter dressed our military will be!
Well, the Pentagon is reporting that all branches are meeting recruiting numbers, so I'm not that arguemnt holds water. I just wish that people would understand it will take ALOT more than lifting a ban. This will open up a huge bag of worms with good order and discipline and possibly other things. Personally, I'm against it, because of two reasons, albiet selfish ones. I don't want to deal with any problems that will come up and I'm a firm believer in the military's role is to protect democracy and freedom, not practice it. If it works just fine like it is, why change it to appease a minority? I will admit that the folks likely to join if it goes away aren't your Queer Eye for the Straight Guy types, they are probably more like Rambo types that just happen to like the same sex. There is nothing about being gay that would make someone not as good as a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine.
My only concern without allowing gays to openly serve is that gay marriage is legal in some states, not in others. The military would pretty much have to recognize those unions like they respect drivers licenses from the various states and if that's the case, then it would be a federal entity recognizing gay marriage and that could force a national decision.
I don't care who you roll under the sheets with, as long as you move, shoot, and communicate properly. If Gays have to pay taxes, they should be able to collect that tax payer generated combat pay.
Would be a pathetic Libertarian if I advocated less freedom for anyone.
Post a Comment