Did Obama announce end of 'don't ask, don't tell' today?

[Liberty Star]

Highlights I saw showed no mention of DADT, did Obama end DADT in military as he was speculated to do?

Obama to call for 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, adviser says

By Laurie Ure, CNN Pentagon Producer
January 27, 2010 7:35 p.m. EST

In any case, would you support such a repeal?

In previous discussions, argument often comes up that if our closet democratic allies who are more religious than US (Turkey, Israel to name two) don't have DADT, why should US? In Israel, they even allow live gay sex shows for their troops morale building during time of war.

Are US policies on homosexuality in the military too inhibitive and fundamentalist? Are Obama advisers right and DADT should be repealed?

 

[MurrayMe]

I don't understand why the ban is so horrible, I would be GLAD I couldn't serve in the military.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

I support a repeal 100%. In a country where people should be treated as individuals with the same rights as anybody else, there is no reason why a gay person should not be allowed to serve in the military.

 

[FrankRep]

Obama to call for 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, adviser says

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html

 

[Vessol]

In practice I am against it and think anyone should be able to openly serve. However practically I realize it really isn't the biggest of issues and there are far more important things to focus on. My hope is that slowly over time the religious view of using the government to push their religious beliefs will subside and even if they disagree with a persons views or sexual orientation, they respect their rights.

 

[angelatc]

He said he was going to work with the military powers and end it. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api

 

[Liberty Star]

Ok, thanks guys for links. So it was just a gentle pledge of sort to push it forward but no major decision was announced today.


BTW, I stand corrected, while Turkey does not have DADT, looks like they don't allow open serving according to google.
And "our closet democratic allies" above should be read as "our closest democratic allies".

 

[BlackTerrel]

I think if you polled the troops (at least from the ones I know) they would be very opposed to serving with gays. That by itself would be a major security concern if you let them in.

Honestly this whole thing is just agenda driven BS. Somehow I doubt there are a bunch of gay people clamoring to join the military.

 

[Vessol]

Well homosexuals are only roughly 1% of the population, bit overrepresented, regardless we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. Equality under the law does.

 

[angelatc]

And "our closet democratic allies" above should be read as "our closest democratic allies".

 

[commonsense]

Well homosexuals are only roughly 1% of the population, bit overrepresented, regardless we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. Equality under the law does.

This argument might hold water if sexual orientation was a federally protected class. But it isn't.

 

[commonsense]

I support a repeal 100%. In a country where people should be treated as individuals with the same rights as anybody else, there is no reason why a gay person should not be allowed to serve in the military.

They can serve in the military. What they cannot do is engage in homosexual conduct (and get caught).

 

[squarepusher]

Well homosexuals are only roughly 1% of the population, bit overrepresented, regardless we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. Equality under the law does.

keep believing that

 

[Vessol]

This argument might hold water if sexual orientation was a federally protected class. But it isn't.

I hate the idea that homosexuals need to be granted extra rights, especially against harassment or w/e. Like I said, overrepresented.

keep believing that

Or at least equality under the law should. Do you disagree.

 

[Promontorium]

I think if you polled the troops (at least from the ones I know) they would be very opposed to serving with gays. That by itself would be a major security concern if you let them in.

Honestly this whole thing is just agenda driven BS. Somehow I doubt there are a bunch of gay people clamoring to join the military.

I seriously disagree with this.

1. I served, and I support ending the ban.

2. The gay people aren't "clamoring" to join the military there already are a lot of homosexuals in the military, they are asking for equal rights. To not have to be afraid.

If there is any redeemable quality to serving in the military, then what right do you have to force homosexuals to stay out? If there is no redeemable quality to the military, what the hell do you care who gets in?


A good friend of mine, a fine example of military bearing and expertise, was kicked out when his chain of command found out he was gay. Yet at another command, I knew several openly gay women, and no one cared.

I won't presume to know the overall democratic opinion of the military, and I don't care. The military isn't a democracy. You hate black people, you can't trust women, you want to shoot gays? Don't join the military. You're not welcome.


What is this fear mongering shit anyway? A "major security concern"? Who's security concern? The nation? This reminds me of the old arguments about segregation, and denying women their rights.

 

[Mini-Me]

I think if you polled the troops (at least from the ones I know) they would be very opposed to serving with gays. That by itself would be a major security concern if you let them in.

Honestly this whole thing is just agenda driven BS. Somehow I doubt there are a bunch of gay people clamoring to join the military.

Good...maybe the troops will go on strike this way.

 

[TCE]

If he ended DADT, it would be probably the only good thing he's done. Remember when Gitmo was to be closed in a year? That was a week ago.

 

[commonsense]

I hate the idea that homosexuals need to be granted extra rights, especially against harassment or w/e. Like I said, overrepresented.



Or at least equality under the law should. Do you disagree.

They don't need to be granted extra rights nor should they. If a gay person is assaulted or harrassed the matter should be adjudicated the same way it would be for a heterosexual person. Hate crime laws really only act to value the members of the protected class higher than those outside the protected class. If a prosecutor wants to use the victim's sexuality or minority status as aggravating evidence for the purpose of sentencing, so be it. But new crimes should not be created based on how a person identifies himself. My life is worth no more and no less than a homosexual. And a white person is worth no and no less than a member of a minority group, etc.

 

[squarepusher]

I hate the idea that homosexuals need to be granted extra rights, especially against harassment or w/e. Like I said, overrepresented.



Or at least equality under the law should. Do you disagree.

well, I am not sure if I believe it, but now a days 'special rights' seems to be the new fad, and also seems to be money allows you more rights (corporations, etc)

 

[Vessol]

well, I am not sure if I believe it, but now a days 'special rights' seems to be the new fad, and also seems to be money allows you more rights (corporations, etc)

Sad, but true. Idealy though I think all should receive equal rights under the law. And in that respect, everyone should be allowed to serve in the military if they can meet the physical and mental requirements for duty.